HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/07/22 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JULY 22, 1998 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __
Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macins __ Commissioner Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 24, 1998
July 8, 1998
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The fo~owing Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-
controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
97-40 FOR TRACT 13812 - WEALTH V, LLC: - The review of the
detailed site plan and building elevations for a recorded final
subdivision map consisting of 107 single family lots on 31.47 acres of
land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue
between Highland and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-441-01 through
11,225-431-01 through 83. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration
of environmental impacts for consideration.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are pubtic hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
B. CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING
GRADING REVIEW AND TIME EXTEI',ISIONS - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA (Continued from June 10, 1998)
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 15926 - CARNEY - A residential subdivision of 5 single family lots
on 1.33 acres offand in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre), located on the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and
Pepperidge Lane -APN: 202-041-67. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-11 COMPASS CREEK
RESTAURANT & BREWERY - A request to establish a bar and micro-
brewery in conjunction with a restaurant within an existing building in
the Masi Plaza with a leased space of 8,700 square feet, located at
11837 Foothill Boulevard APN: 229-011-39. Related
file: Entertainment Permit 98-03.
E. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 98-03 COMPASS CREEK
RESTAURANT & BREWERY - A request to have entertainment
consisting of live bands in conjunction with a restaurant and bar within
an existing building in the Masi Plaza with a leased space of 8,700
square feet, located at 11837 Foothill Baulevard - APN: 229-011-39.
Related file: Conditional Use Permit 98-11.
VI. DIRECTOR'S REEPORTS
F. 1998/99 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM SCHEDULE
VII. PUBLIC COMI~tlENTS
This is the time and p/ace for the genera/pubtic to address the Commission,/tems
to be discussed here are those which do not a/rea :ly appear on this agenda.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
G, ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
H. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Page 2
I. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
l ~:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A
WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS
ROOM REGARDING A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE
PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN
CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE
I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on July 16, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 3
VICilItlTY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF P~NCHO CUCANIONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Butler, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR
TRACT 13812 - WEALTH V, LLC - The review of the detailed site plan and building
elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family tots
on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west
of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-441
through 11,225-431-01 through 83.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The design review for the tract will
be considered by the Planning Commission at a later date. The applicant has requested
expediency in granting environmental clearance for the site in order to comply with San
Bemardino County ordered weed abatement. The applicant is particularly concerned about
the threat of fire dangers posed to three existing homes adjacent to the project site due to the
significant amount of dry vegetation.
B. Environmental Assessment: The project includes only the westerly one-half of Tract 13812.
The project was previously rough graded in 1990, and perimeter and retaining walls
constructed. The site has since been left undisturbed. The property is located in an area
recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as potential
habitat for endangered or threatened species. Although the tract had been previously graded,
vegetation has regrown and covers most of the site, The property contains indicator species
of sage scrub habitat. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were
required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California
Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat assessment and
protocol surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting biologists permitted by the U .S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the habitat on site is marginally
suitable forthe Gnatcatcher and the Kangaroo Rat. In addition, none of the two endangered
species were observed on the site during surveys conducted according to USFWS protocol.
Based on this information, the proposed development of the 31.4 acre site wilt not likely result
in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. Impacts relating to
drainage, circuiation, and noise have been addressed and mitigated in the environmental
assessment for Tract 13812 and are referenced in City Council Resolution 88-699 and a
Negative DecIaration dated December 7, 1988. No other potentially significant environmental
impacts have been identified as a result of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs,
then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOR'"
DR 97-40
July 22, 1998
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative
Declaration for Development Review 97-40.
Brad Bullet
City Planner
BB:CG:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" Site Plan
Exhibit "C" Initial Study Part II
Exhibit "D" Biological Habitat Assessment Survey
Exhibit "E" Letter from Mr Wuh dated 6/15/98
~ ~ City of Rancho Cucarnonga
,- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
, , INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 97-40
2. Related Files: Tract 13812
3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812 WEALTH V. LLC - The review of the detailed site plan
and building elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family
lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland and
Summit Avenues - APN: 225-421-15, 16, and 26.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ken Wuh
Wealth V, LLC
1028 Westminster Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803
5. General Plan Designation: Etiwanda North Specific Plan
6. Zoning: Low Residential District
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north, east and south of the project site is
vacant land. The property to the west and norlhwest contains scattered single family
residences.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Cecilia Gailardo, Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
Cucamonga County Water District
Etiwanda School District
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
EXHIBIT "C"
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below wauld be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Signif cant Impact:," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Sicjnificant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) TranspodaticnlCirculation (X) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that although the proposedi project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in ':his case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY '~ave a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described On attached shee~s, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR]' is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed proje st could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Cecilia Gallardo
Assistant Planner
July 1, 1998
A/D
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant impact," "Potentia y Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
,, ever the project? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result,in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
0 Erosion, changes in topogra~:hy, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical ~;atures? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
O The topography will be altere;d to accommodate the project. The design of the
project site and construction of the proposed grading shall follow the
recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply with the current building
standards and codes at the ti-ne of construction. Grading of the site will be done
under supervision of a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not
considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people or prope~/to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
c) Discharge into su~ace water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)'? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in, any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 5
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals. or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations. or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The proposed project will result in an ~ncrease in paved surface areas, which could
result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface
water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities
which were designed to handle the subject water flows.
b) An evaluation of flooding impacts were addressed in the environmental assessment
for Tract 13812. and as a condition of tract map approval, flood protection facilities
are required to be installed as part of the development of the site, Mitigations for
flooding hazards are referenced in City Council Resolution 88-699 and Negative
Declaration dated December 7. 1998,
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 6
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (X)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (X)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (X)
0 Conflicts with adopted policie,.~ suppotting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X)
a) The project will not generat{; substantial additional vehicular movement. The
proposal is consistent with the. General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will
be required to provide a primary and secondary access to the site and install street
frontage improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in/mpacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not lim;ted to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Wet[and habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 7
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or
threatened species. The subject site contains indicator species of sage scrub
habitat. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were
required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the fedorally-listed threatened
California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The
habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting,
biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys
indicate that the habitat on site is marginally suitable for the gnatcatcher and the
kangaroo rat. In addition, none of the two endangered species were observed on
the site during the surveys conducted according to USFWS protocol. Based on the
this information, the proposed development of the 31.4 acre site will not likely result
in adverse effects. There is no knowledge of other unique, rare, sensitive, or
endangered animal species potentially living on project site.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
,zar/5'
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 8
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existin!] sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in area.,; with ~ammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
NOISE. Willthepmposalresultin:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
Comments:
a) The subject site is bounded an the south by the future Route 30 freeway. An
evaluation of noise impacts on the project site have been addressed in the
environmental assessment for Tract 13812. Mitigations for sound attenuation are
referenced in City Council Resolution 88-699 and Negative Declaration dated
December 7, 1998.
I t. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ) ( ) (X) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities including roads? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 9
Comments:
c) The Etiwanda School District submitted correspondence on February 19, 1998, that
indicates the existing schools that would serve this project are already at or above
capacity and the District will not be able to accommodate all of the students
expected to be generated from the project. The District states that mitigation beyond
the state statutory fees will be needed, As a condition of approval, the developer
shall execute an agreement with the District to provide the additional mitigation or
to provide full mitigation. Full mitigation may be accomplished by means of a
requirement to form, or to participate in an existing, Mello-Roos Community facilities
District for school facilities.
The Chaffey Joint Union High School District submitted correspondence dated
February 18, 1998, indicating a mitigation agreement was reached with the owners
of the property.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 10
Comments:
a) The project is adjacent to the! future State Route 30. A sound attenuation wall is
required to mitigate noise im.~>acts generated by the freeway A wall plan shall be
prepared for City Planner approval which incorporates necessary sound attenuation,
a decorative material, and extensive landscaping to minimize negative aesthetic
effects.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
.. b) Disturb archaeological resoun:es? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique eth'~ic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
15. RECREATION. Would the pmposak
a) Increase the demand for ,neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page 11
16. I~ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? CCumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( (X)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(×) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-40 Page t2
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #89012314, certified Aiaril 1, 1992)
(X) Environmental Assessment for Tract 13812
(Negative Declaration dated December 12, 1988)
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
occur,
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 97-40 Public Review Period Closes: July 22, 1998
Project Name: Project Applicant: Ken Wuh, Wealth V, LLC
Project Location (also see attached map): Located west of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland
and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-441-01 through 11,225-431-01 through 83.
Project Description: The review of the detailed site pIan and building elevations for a recorded
final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review
period.
July 22. 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
P p-t
,4n Environtncnta[ PlenztingzResource ,~[~negen;ent Cof:Dor2,t[otl
June 3,1998
Ken Wuh
Panda Development Corporation
1028 Westminster Avenue
Alhambra, California 91803
Subject: Biological Constraints Study for Tract 13812 in Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Wuh:
This letter report presents the findings of a biological resources survey and habitat assessment on
Tract 13812 in Rancho Cucamonga, Califorria. The purpose of the assessment was to identify
whether onsite vegetation provides habitat for sensitive or endangered species on the 66.4 acre
site. The site is north of Highland Avenue and west of Etiwanda Avenue on the Cucamonga USGS
quad map (see Exhibit 1)
METHODS
Habitat Assessment
BonTerra Consulting conducted a search of the literature to identify special status plants, wildlife,
or habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. The California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNDDB 1997), California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California (CNPS 1998), and compendia of special status species published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were
reviewed. Attachment 1 lists the special interest plant and wildfire species known to occur in the
vicinity of the project with their status and occurrence probability for the site.
An initial survey was conducted on Maroh 12, 1998 by Sandra J. Leatherman, Senior Botanist at
BonTerra Consulting, to describe the vegetation and evaluate the potential of the habitat to support
special interest plant and wildlife species. AI plant and wildlife species observed were recorded
in field notes. Plant species were identified in the field or collected for future identification. Plants
were identified using keys in Hickman (1993), Vlunz (I 974) and Abrams (1923). Taxonomy follows
Hickman (1993)for scientific and common names. Robeds (1998) was used for common names
when none were listed in Hickman (1993).
The assessment survey determined that there was potential habitat on the site for the federally
endangered coastal California gnatcatcher IPolioptila cafifornica californica) and the federally
endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merr/ami paNus). Focused surveys
following applicable USFWS protocols were conducted for these species, as discussed below.
,. ::'~-~1 ""':;'~1~ ,::~":' ......""'~:~ "'"
, , - ,,.~.;~, ,,~-:;~i' ~. ::!
· "- ..... :: ~'~: I ' ' .... ~ _: [ ': ' ~ ' '~ /
_2~,~a~ : 32 i~=s SOU,~E~,~ ,&
· , ,, ~ .
_ - "' __ , "~ Z " ' . : ,~ .,. '.
NORTH
Scale: 1" = 2000'
Project Location Map EXHIBIT1'
Panda Development Site //l]fl12'rril Co,Lflzltin,~
Ken Wuh
June 3, 1998
Page 2
Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys
USFWS permitted biologist Mike San Miguel (PMT 831910) conducted the focused surveys for the
coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN). SJrveys were conducted, as required by the USFWS
protocol, on six separate visits to habitat on the sites on the following dates: March 19 and 26, and
April 2, 11, 18, and 25, 1998. Attachment 2 is a letter to the USFWS that documents the methods
used in compliance with gnatcatcher permit requirements.
Focused San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Surveys
USFWS and CDFG permitted biologists Karen Kin[land and Phillippe Vergne conducted initial
walkover surveys of the site on March I2 an ~ May 5, 1998 to determine suitable locations for the
focused trapping surveys for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). Trapping was conducted
in accordance with applicable USFWS protocols which require five nights of trapping, conducted
when the animal is active above-ground at night, and preferably during a new moon phase. Initial
trapping began on May 7, 1998, but was suspended due to inclement weather conditions (night-
time temperatures in the high forties and occasional rain). The final days of trapping were May 15
through May 19, 1998. A total of 44 traps were placed within the site.'
SURVEY RESULTS
Vegetation
The vegetation on the site has been disturbed by grading approximately seven years ago and
contains several din[ roads and brick retaining walls. The dominant species on the site include
California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with limited numbers of white sage (Salvia apiana),
scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), ,Jeer weed (Lotus scoparius), California sagebrush
(Artern/sia californica). and yerba santa (Eriodictyon tdchocalyx). The vegetation most closely
resembles a mixture of Riversidian sage sc-ub and Riversidian altuvial fan sage scrub (Holland
1986) or California buckwheat series (Sawye' and Keeler*Wolf 1995). Exhibit 2 depicts the onsite
vegetation.
Wildlife Habitat
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Both Riversidian sage scrub and Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub habitats provide potentially
suitable habitats for the CAGN. However, the habitats on site have been disturbed by past grading
activities and are relatively isolated from other open space areas. As a result, the onsite habitats
are considered marginally suitable for the CAGN.
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The majority of the site consists of buckwhen: scrub vegetation. Habitat for the SBKR is typically
confined to primary and secondary alluvial scrub habita[s, with sandy soils deposited by fluvial
(water) processes. Qnsite habitat is marginafiy suitable for the SBKR.
IUversidi:nFAlluvial Fal~ Sage Scrub
r;: . ,:=
~:', . ..~ p .r:~ ,
"
, . .... :-~:
Tract 13812 ............
EXHIBIT2
Vegetative Communities
Ken Wuh
June 3, 1998
Page 3
Special Interest Plant and Wildlife Species
Plants or animals may be considered "spe:ial interest" due to declining populations, vulnerability
to habitat change, or restricted distributions. The special interest species known to occur in the
vicinity of the project and their potential to occur onsite are listed in Attachment 1.
Plant Species
Six special interest plant species are knowr to occur in the vicinity of the site. O~e special interest
plant species could potentially occur on the project site: the Piummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus
plummerae). This species generall~ occurs scattered in grassy openings in sage scrub or
chaparral. Due to the disturbed condition of the site, the Plummer's marioosa lily is not expected
to occur in large numbers. Therefore, the project will not result in any imp'acts on this species that
would be considered significant. The remaining five special interest plant species are not expected
to occur on the project site because of lack af suitable habitat. Mitigation measures are therefore
not recommended or required.
Development of the site would not impact any unique vegetative habitats. Mitigation measures are
therefore not recommended or required.
Wildlife Species
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The CAGN was not observed on the site during the six weeks of surveys conducted according to
USFWS protocol. Based on these survey results, the project will no~ result in any impacts on the
CAGN. Mitigation measures are therefore not recommended or required.
San Bernardino Kanqaroo Rat
No individuals of SBKR were trapped on the site. Based on these survey results, the project will
not result jn any impacts on the SBKR. Mitigation measures are therefore not recommended or
required.
BonTerra Consulting has appreciated the opportunity to assisl Panda Development on this project.
If you have any comments or questions, please call Tom Smith or Ann Johnston at (714)475-9520.
Sincerely,
BONTERRA CONSULTING
Principal Project Manager/Ecologist
Attachments
Ken Wuh
June 3, 1998
Page 4
Attachment i: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species That May Occur in the Vicinity of Tract
13182.
Attachment 2: Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Results of Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Surveys for Tract 13812, Dated June 3, 1998.
Attachment 3: Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat for
Panda Development Property in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Prepared for
BonTerra Consulting by Kirtland Biological Services, May 26, 1998.
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes. 1, II, and Itl. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Rarefind Database. California Department of Fish
and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California.
California Native Plant Society 1998. Electronic InventoN of Rare and Endanoered Vascular Plants
of California. Sacramento. California.
Hickman, J. C. Editor 1993. The Jepson Manual Hiqher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley. California.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Non-game Heritage Program, State of California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Roberts, F.M. 1998. A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Oranqe County, California. F, M.
Roberts Publications, Encinitas, California.
Sawyer, J.O. and Keeler-Wolf, T. 1995. A Manual of California Veqetation. California Native Plant
Society, Sacramento, CA.
7-
ATTACHMENT I
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF TRACT 13182
Spee,es {cNPs I State I Federal ! Potential Onsite
91ummer's mariposa lily
2alochortus plummerae 1B I None SOC Limited Potential
Peirson's sprin9 beauty
ClaZtonia lanceolata va~: pe~rsonii 1B None SOC No Suitable Habitat
slender-horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras 1B CE FE No Suitable Habitat
aious daisy
~ri[leron breweft vat. bisanctus 1B None None No Suilab[e Habita~
JohnstoWs buckwheat
E~o~onum microthecum ~ar. johnstonii 1B ! None SOC No Suitable Habitat
Laguna Mtns, ~ewel-~ower
Streptanthus bemardinus t I B None None No Suitable Habitat
WtLDLIFE
California mastiff bat
Eumops perotis califomicus NA SC SOC No Suitable Habita~
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Dipodomfs meMami panvus NA f None FE Marginally Suitable Habitat
I
Nelson's Bighorn Sheep
Ovis canadensis nelsoni ~A None I None I No Suitable Habi[a~
San Diego Horned Lizard
Ph~nosoma coronaturn blainvillel ~ NA SC I SOC Marginally Suitable Habitat
California 9natcatcher
Polioptfla califomica califomica NA SC FT Marginally Suitable Habitat
LEGEND
FEDERAL (USFWS)
FE Federalty Listed as Endangered
FT Federally Listed as Threatened
FPE FederalZy Proposed for Endangered
FPT Federally Proposed for Threatened
SOC Species of Concern
STATE (CDFG)
CE State Lis~ed as Endangered
CT State Lis~ed as Threatened
CNPS
1A Plan~s Presumed E~inct in California
1B Plants Rare. Threatened. or Endangergd in Ca$i~omia and Ersevzhere
Plants Rare, Threatened, or EndangerBd in Cal~fornEa But More Common Elsewhere
Plants About Which We Need More - t,. Review Lis~
Attachment 2
Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding ResuIts of Coastal California
" Gnatcatcher Surveys for Tract 13812, Dated June 3, 1998.
June 3,1998
Doug Krofta
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Cadsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Results of Coastal Caiiforni~ Gnatcatcher Survey on Tract No. 13812 and Tract No.
14120-1 in the City of Rancho Cu,:amonga, San Bemardino County, California
Dear Mr. Kro~a:
This letter report presents the results of focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila califomica californica) on Tract No. 13812 and Tract No. 14120-i (project site) in Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The combined area of the two tracts is
approximately 80 acres. The purpose of the :survey was to determine the presence or absence of
the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) on the project site. The surveys were conducted
according to guidelines established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under Permit
No. PMT-831910 issued to Consulting Ornithologist Mike San Miguet in accordance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIFTION
The project site is a vacant parcel of land adjacent to and north of Highland Avenue. about ¼ mile
west of Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California
(Exhibit 1), The site occupies approximately 80 acres and consists of Tract 13812 and Tract
14120-1. ,
Within Tract 13812, there are two residences on the west, and a Cucamonga Water Company well
and pump facility occupies a small portion of the northern sector of the site. All of Tract 13812 was
previously graded to establish roads and resi:jentiai pads in late 1991/early 1992; the project did
not proceed and vegetation has regrown and now covers all of the site. Concrete block walls were
found throughout the northerly portion of Trac': 13812. Otherwise, the properW on the east, north
and west is vacan~ undeveloped land, A rough din roadi from Highland Avenue runs north and
bisects Tract 13812.
Tract No. 14120ol is a vacanl parcel of land bordered to, the south by a rough graded dirt road
which is the westerly extension of Summit Aw.mue from Efiwanda Avenue; this dirt road provides
access to the site. There is a wood pole electrical line and din road to the west and vacant land
to the north and east. This site appears to have been previously graded and a system of grid-like
roads traverse the site.
Doug Krofia
June 3,1998
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The CAGN was designated a threatened species by the USFWS on March 25, 1993. A special rule
was issued in conjunction with Ihis designation that would allow incidental take of CAGNs under
Section 9 of the federal ESA, if the take results from activities conducted in accordance with the
state's Naturat Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (USFWS 1993). For those not participating
in the state's NCCP, any activity that may result in the take of CAGNs would require formal
consultation with the USFWS either under Section 7 or Section 10 of the federal ESA.
The CAGN is the northern most of three subspecies currently recognized for species status
(Atwood 1991). It is restricted to arid, Iowiand areas and has a range from southwestern California
to northwestern Baja California. The remaining two subspecies occur within central and southern
Baja California, Mexico. Within the U.S., their current range is generally within San Diego,
Orange, Los Angeles, and western Riverside counties, Habitat for this non-migratory species is
generally timited to coastal and inland sage scrub piant communities. The CAGN is typically found
at elevations below 820 feet along the coast and below 1,640 feet inland (Atwood and Bolsinger
1992). The USFWS estimates that approximately 2,562 pairs remain in the U.S. (USFWS 1993).
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The surveys forthe CAGN were conducted on March 19 and 26, and on April 2, 11, 18, and 25,
1998 according to the guidelines issued by the USFWS on February 28, 1997 and revised on July
28,1997. These guidelines stipulate that the site be surveyed at least six times at intervals of 7
days or more during the breeding season. Field notes and a sketch of the site detailing the
dominant plants encountered and other bird species observed were prepared during the survey.
The entire habitat was thoroughly covered by Mr. San Miguel during the morning hours when
CAGN's are generally most active and when they are most likely to be encountered. Mr. San
Migue[ systematically surveyed the entire site by walking slowly while pIaying vocaiizations of the
CAGN. The vocalizations were played for brief periods at intervals of 200 feet or less. RouIes
were randomly selected during each of the six surveys and no two routes were repeated in order
to maximize coverage and increase the chance of encountering CAGN potentially present on the
site.
Weather conditions during all surveys were generally cool to warm with cloud cover on some of the
survey days. Light winds were blowing on most survey days. All days were considered by the
observer to be conducive to bird activity. Surveys were started after 7:00 a.m. and were concluded
before noon on all days.
SURVEY RESULTS
No coastal California Gnatcatchers were seen or heard during any of the six days the site was
suNeyed.
The dominant plant species found on Tract 13812 was California buckwheat which in some
locations constituted nearly 100% of the vegetation. Relatively young ceanothus (Eriogonum
fasiculatum) and bush mallow (Malcothammus fasciculatus) were sparsely scattered throughout
most of the site. A smali stand of white sage (Salvia apiana) and deer weed (Lotus scoparius)
were also found. Pockets of hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx ssp. Trichocalyx)and scale
broom (Lepidosparfum squamatum) were found on the south portion of the site. A row of mature
Doug Krofia
June 3,1998
Page 3
eucalyptus borders the northeast portion of the site where a Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperh] and
barn owl (Tyro alba) were occupying nests.
Tract 14120 has been previously graded, but vegetation has regrown and covers most of the si[e.
Some areas of the site are covered with ruderat plant species. The dominant species on most of
the site was California buckwheat and white sage; a small stand of coyote bush (Baccharis
pilularis) was found in the southeast corner o" the site, Other plant species in the more disturbed
areas included phace[ia (Phacelia sp.), deer weed, and several varieties of non-native grasses and
annuals.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
BONTERRA CONSULTING
Literature Cited:
Atwood, J. L. 1990, Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila catifornica). Manomet
Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts.
Atwood, J. L.. 1991. Subspecies Limits and Geographic Patterns of Morphological Variation in
California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica),. Bull, Southern California Acad. Sci.
90(3):118-133.
Atwood, J. L., and J. S. Bolsinger. 1992. Eh.=vational Distribution of the California Gnatcatchers
in the United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 64(2):159-168.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Threatened Coastat California Gnatcatcher; Final Rule and Proposed Special RuIe.
Federal Register 50 CFR ParL 17, Vol. 58, No. 59: 16742-16759.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 28, 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica cafifornica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 28, 1997, 3oastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
califomica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol!.
It
' ~ ".. ;~ - . . ,,--.- - ": .... ~,---~ - ~.,'~_',....~'
..... ;~i ":: " :-.,"".. ........" \~
' "' "' d --.'' ~]--.s~,,o~,, ' ~ .... ' .....~"'~: ~/-"
~:~.":':'::":'::'~ ~ ~ ~';~ . ,, -
:_ ,._.-"-.-_ ........./ ~...
.' .7 ~. _ ~:'.~,~ :'~
. . ." ' .... : : .... -~ ', ~ ~ · "'
~sr ~,~-~- '" ' ~ ~o~_~ - :'; , a ..I ~ . _ ·
....... ~=
NORTH
Scale: 1" = 2000'
Project Location Map EXHIBIT1
Panda Development Site -Tract Nos. 13812 and 14120-1 /,'~l~;rr,~
Attachment 3
Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat for Panda
Development Property in Rancho CLcamonga, California. Prepared for BonTerra
Consulting bY Kirttand Biological Services. May 26, 1998.
Kirtland
Biological
Se~dces
Presence/Absence Trapping Studies
for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Panda Development
Rancho Cucamonga, California
prepared for:
BonTerra Consultir~g
20321 Birch Sireel, Suite 201
Ne~,,'port Beach, CA 92660
May 26, 1998
Project NuInber: BTE98-103
3415 Va[encia Hill Drive Phone/Fax: 909 686 1141
Riverside, CA 92507 E-inail: kkirtland@aol.com
Kirtland Biological Services
Table of Contents Page
ll~roduction .....................................................................................................................................
Project Description ...................................................................................................................
Methods ..................................................................................................................................................1
Research ............................................................
Habilat Evaluation Surveys ....................................................................................................
Trapping Studies .....................................................................................................................4
Findil~gs ....................................................................................................................................................4
Topography and Soils ..............................................................................................................4
Plant Communities ...........................................................................................................~......4
Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................5
San Bernardh~o Kangaroo Ra~ ................................................................................................5
Sun~l~a~ ..................................................................................................................................................9
Refereoces ..........................................................................................., ..................................................10
List of Figures
1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................................2
2 Project Vicinity ..........................................................................................................................3
3 Trap Sites ...................................................................................................................................7
List of Tables
1 Pantin Development Trapping Results - guckwhea Scrub ....................... S
2 Panda Development Trapping Results - White Sage Scrub ............................................... S
Appendices
Appendix A - Plant Species Observed
Appendix B - Animal Species Observed
Kirtland Biological Services
INTRODUCTION
Kirt!and Biological Services (KBS) was conlacled by BonTerra Consulling ~o conduct trapping studies for
the proposed 120 acre development project Iocaled in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardtrio
County, California (Figure 1). The trapping studies were required due to the potential presence on the
property of Ihe San Bernard trio kangaroo rat (Ditlodomys Inerrilulli tlalvlts).
Project Description
The project is a proposed residential developaltar on 120 acres of privale property in Rancho Cucamonga
(Figure 2). TIle property is located norIll of klighland Avenue and ;vesl of Eliwanda Avenue. It is
bounded by Highland Avenue on tile souIll and open space/mixed rural residenlial on the east, ;;'est and
north. The property occurs in Section 2% Township 1 Nortit, Range 6 West, Cucamonga Peak 7.5
topographic quadrangle, San Bernardtrio base and nteridian.
METHODS
Research
Prior Io beginning tile field surveys and trapping sludies, KBS rcvie:ved tile available literature oil the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat Io determine habilat requiremeals and aclivity periods. The documents
revie;ved by KBS included Ihe following:
· The Statt/s and Knort,n Distribution of lhl' San Ucruatdino Knlzgaroo Rat (DiI~odotuys mcrl'ianti tlatxlns):
YiHd sul~wJIs condttclrd bt'ln,ccn 1987 and 1996, McKernan, 1997.
· Enter,ql'ttczj RIde to List the San Bcrtmrdino KstHgttt'O0 Ral, Slttt Bet'lutrditto u/td Rivcrside Cottntie5 in
Soullwnt Califi,'nht, tts EitdanXcred.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a
·Endangercd and Threatened Wildlife attd Plauts; Prol~oscd R uh' lo List tire San BerntH'ditto Ktutgtuvo Part
as Endanga'ed;and Notice of Public Hearin,~. U.S. Fish and Wild life Service, 1998b.
· t~'hHnmtds of the Pacific States, tngles, 1965.
KBS also reviewed other available technical information on this species, and discussed recent findings
with researchers in the field. We used the information to focus our trapping efforts in the field.
Habitat Evaluation Suweys
Karen Kirtland of KBS and Philippc Vcrgne of Envira conducted a preliminaD, walkover survey of the
site on March 12 and May 5, 1998, to determine suitable sites for trapping of the SBKR. During the
reconnaissance surveys, KBS recorded the various pbnt communities and condition of the habdats on
site. Based on the survey findings, KBS selected two sites for trapping.
May 26, 199S BTEg8-103 I
Kirkland Biological Services
Source: Thomas nn,s. Guld~.. I99S Figure 1 Regional Location
Kirdand Biological Services
--. '.~ . . -.:<5:.,$~,Q -
=========================v.
, ~ .... ~/ ~.
: g · - -"~g ~ g~,~ · ~-~ .... 5=; 7 =Ta--Z
, '. ~{~ ~-~ff~; u= ]E7 ," ' ' "':~ ':'7
.: .s. ~._, F:~{~ ,-~ :LZj :5;Q~C~ , :1 .' 'j ""':~
.... ' .... ~ j2 ~ '1 ....... 3 ' ~ '
:y,,,o/.:: . aC(,,o ~°~t~' d....:z~:~ ~', ,
Sourot': Cucamonga Peak, 7.5' USeS topographic quddranglc Figure 2 Project VidxMW
N
Feet Panda Devciopm. cnt Site
f '-: ::-'1 [_=:==_,=:_._ ,__~_1
May 2,'%, 1998 BTE98-]{]3 3
Kirtland Biological Services
Trapping Studies
KB8 concluded traDDi;lg according ~o protocols esLabHshed for the Sr~Kg. '1he protocol calls for five
nights of trapping, conducted ;rhea the animal is active above~ground at night and preferably during a
new moon phase. Our initial trapping was wa~ begun on ~'lay 7, 1998 during the last quarter o[ the
waxing moon. h~clement weather condilions (n ,; ~ ime temperatures in the high forlies and occasional
rain), delayed completion of the trapping until the following week. The final days of trapping were
conducted May 15 through May 19, 1998.
We placed the traps in suitable habitat areas or [l~e project, concernrating on locating traps in areas
conlaining burrows suitable for the SBKR. All lrap locations were flagged ~o ensure lhe same trap sites
were ~rapped each night.
Each trap was baited with a mixture of bird seed, 'oiled oats and peanut butter, placed at the back of the
[raps. Due to/be abundance of available native seed, KBS added [i~e peanul butler Io increase the
attraction of the bait. The traps were placed at dusk each night and inspeeled at dawn each morning. All
animals were identified and released at fi~e point ol capture.
KBS took notes on ll~e habitats where Ibe traps were placed, and recorded soil and other relevant
charaderislics. We also noted the weather condibons at the time o[ the trapping stud ies.
FINDINGS
Topography and Soils
Tile site is located on tile floodplain of tile coastal side of file San Gabriel i'.lountains. Slope angles did not
exceed five percent over tile entire site.
Tile soils are a uniform nlix of cobbles and loamy coarse sand, Tilere are two soil types on site (Soil
Conservation Service 1980). Soboba stony loamy sand, an excessively drained soil forming on alluvial
fans in granitic alluvium, is found primarily in thn extreme western'section of tile property. Tujunga
gravelly loamy sand is a somewhat excessively drained soil lhat forms oil alluvial fails in granitic
alluvium. Tujunga gravelly loamy sand forms tile maiortty of Ihe soil on site, extending throughout tile
northern and eastern sections.
Plant Communities
TIle site contains three separate plant communifics. 'File nlajority o[ tile western half of the siLe is
occupied by buckwheat scrub. Annual grassland occupies tile eastern half, intermixed with eucalyptus
rows. White sage scrub is found in tile northern section of tl~e parcel, above the extension of Sumndt
A;'enue.
BttcL~'uhcat Scrtlb
Buckwheat scrub is dominated by flat-topped buck;., heat (Eriogouuu .fi sclcuflttmu). Other less donlinant
scrub species in this plant community include yelba santa (Eriodi:tyo tli'hoc ly.,:) deerv.'eed (Loins
Kirtland Biological Services
scoparius) and occasional individuals of California sagebrush (Artl'utisia cahfornicll). Annual species
include popcorn flower (Cryptmttizd iHtrrmed~:), fiddleneck (A,'ttsilwkilt intl'rnzl!ditt), suncup (Olmissonis~
DistortiT), filago (gihzgogallic:z) and borehound (,% //~,,'z idlitiih, V,'I/SlZF/'). Non native annual grasses include red
brome (BFotltlls ,t~zdrik'usis ), slender :vild oats ( AVelt.'t batbala) and foxtail (VtdpismlnJttro$).
Artmud Crasslatzd
The armual grassland community is dominated by dense stands of slender wild oats and red brome, as
well as stands of short-podded mustard (Hirsch~,idia htcaua) and abu-mashi (Schismus barbarns). A
dominanl visual feature of this community is tile blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Slobuhls) stands that
form rows running east Io ,,vest in this section o( the property.
~Vhitt, SitRe &:rub
White sage scrub is dominated by white sage (Salvia tip[nun), but includes flat-topped buck;vhcaL and
California sagebrush. Other species include deerweed and desert brittlebush (Enceh'a]u-iltosa) . Red
brome and slender wild oats are the dominant grasses in this habitat.
A complete list ofplanl species observed in included in Appendix A.
Wildlife
Wild[ire was moderate on site, dominated by mammals and birds. Sign observed included scat, tracks,
burrows, calls, remains and actual slghtings. Species observed included mourning dove, California quail,
bushtit, California thrasher, northern mockingbird, ;vhite-cro,.:'ncd sparrow, scrub jay, black-tailed
iackrabbit, Audubon's cottontail, and coyote.
A conlplete list of wildlife species observed in included in Appendix g.
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
St,rcies Description
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is one of three kangaroo rat species in its range. Both tile Pacific
kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo ral (Dipodomys stl'phcltsi) occur in areas
occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, but these other two species have a wider habitat range.
The habitat of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is described as being confined to primary and secondary
alluvial fan scrub habitats, ;vith sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than aeolian (wind)
processes.
Like all kangaroo rats, the Sail BernardiIio kangaroo rat is primarily a seed eater, feeding on the seeds of
both annual and shrub species. It also feeds on green vegetation and insects when these are available.
Being primarily a desert species (like all kangaroo rats), the San Bcrnardino kangaroo rat obtains nearly
all of its water from the food it eals, and can subsist indefinitely on water extracted from dry seeds. It
forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Burrows are dug in loose soil, usually near or beneath
shrubs.
May 26, I998BTE98-I(13 A d [ 5
Kirtland Biological Services
Tbe breeding season extends primarily from Jar. uary through late No,.'enlber, with peak reproduction
occurring in late June. Uskla[j},, ouly one litter is produced pc,~ )'ear with an average of only two to three
young.
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dil~odom~/s merriamit~unms) iS one of tl~ree subspecies of the Merriam's
kangaroo ral. The Merriam's kangaroo rat is a ,~idespread s:pecies IbM can be found from (he inland
velleys to the deserls. The subspecies known ~s the San Bernardino kangaroo, bowever, is confined to
inland valley scrub communities, and more particularly, to scrub communities occurring along rivers,
streams and drainages. Most or these drainages have been l~islorically altered as a result of flood control
efforts and the resulting increased use of river resources, including mining, of Groad vehicle use ~nd road
and housing development. This increased use of river resources has resulted in a reduction in both the
amount and quality of h=bitat ~vailable for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The past bobira/losses and
potential Euture losses prompted lbe recent emergency listing of the San Bernardb~o kangaroo rat as an
codangered species (U.S. Fish end Wildlife Service 1998a).
The estimated historical distribution of Ibis species included all of tiffs part of Rancho Cucamonga. The
nearest recent locality to the project sile is in Lytic Creek to the norlheast (McKernan, 1997).
Two sites were selected by KBS as suitable for tra,~ping (Figure 3). The first site (Site A) was located in
lbe eastern potlion of ~he buckwheat scrub pbn~ ccmmunity, away from adjacenl housing and roads. We
placed ~ traps in this area.
Site g is located in the northern section of the property, in the white sage scrub community. This site bas
undergone some significant disturbance in the past. The routes o( old roads were visibie as areas of less
dense scrub cover. We placed 17 traps in tiffs area.
Weulher Condilbu s
Weather conditioos changed little during tile course of tile/rapp~ng studies. Early morning temperatures
:',,'ere in lhe low sixlies throughout ~he survey. Liglq fog occurred on May 7, when the lraps were pulled.
No rain or fog occurred during ~he remainder of the survey.
The lrapping on May 7 (ook place four days before the full moon. The remaining Irapping studies were
conducled when the moon was in a waning pi~ase, starting four days past the full moon on May t I.
Trt~l, gestdl>
KSS did nol Ira~ any individuals of San Bernardino kat~garoo raL Trapping success was Ifigh over the
entire trappiog period. Tables ] and 2 provide informntion on the species trapped per site and per nigbL
M,~v 26 998 DTEuS-1 ( 3
Kitfiend BioLogical Services
- :f! ' , - ,
ii .- -- - -'?,: """~' ' ,oo~·
!~ . - ' ' ';, r - ' .-- '
':-===- ' .........'ii'='T-''' ........*. :'-:5;" := ~:;~:~ ....7.' .........~
. . _ - .~ · : _- .~::! '- : /L '
~--- ' ~ -'.so.o~ v,t ~ r~ ' ':L :' :~-"
............ ~::::::::::.:.~ ......7~'='"' "r~' '_:-::'~'~'-'> ......
- '::~ ~," A, ~..-..~ ,.'.vv='..,,-
--'Y ' ' ' =: ~j ',~ ~ .. C~ -. ~ Kliz;.' :. ::
~5 :' ' ~' , :~. ' ....~ ......, u'r' ~'~: ~': .......'~ '
....... -..~. ::~o~ J_ :-: ~ >~'~~
s,,~: c~,,~s~ .~.~k 7.s' Figure 3 San Bcrnardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Loca~ons
A -- TrapIh~e location
N
.~ Fee[
I"::" :' 7: I I:--: ........ :':-'::1
{ /i luull 2u{:t/ .'uuu Panda Development Site
Kirfiand Biological Services
Table 1. Panda Development Trapping Results - Buckwheat Scrub
44 Traps
Trap Nights
~P~Fits ...................... 517-_8....5115-L6 5/.ls-jT.s/ l__7:lLsL1,8.:!LT_o.!~[s'
gt'rognttthus longhut'ntbris brt'vt'nasus 3 1 2 3 9
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Chaelodipptts~dhtx 3 9 6 5 5 28
San Diego pocket mouse
Dipodomtls agt'li< 3 3 2 2 3 13
Pacific kangaroo rat
Pt'routyscnsntanicnhtttts 2D 1S 24 27 29 118
Deer mouse
Perontyscns boylii 4 5 3 2 t 4
- Brush mouse
Nt'otonut h'pida 1 1
Desert woodrat
Totals 30 33
39 40 39 183
Trapping success 68% 80`;;, 89');, 91% 89% 83%
Table 2. Panda Development Trapping Results - White Sage Scrub
17 Traps
Trap Nights
S_p, ecies ~,/7-8 5/I5-16 5/16-17 5/17-18 5/18-19 Totals
Pc,'o.qnathus lo,tg ', . b ' 's ~ 'cvi. s s 3 4 2 1 I l 1
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Dipodomys uyilis 4 4 4 1 13
Pacific kangaroo rat
Pcyotnysctts c~dtfornictts ] ] 1 3
California mouse
Perontysctt5 tnmticnhllns g 3 4 3 5 23
Deer mouse
Perontyscu5 boyh'i 3 1 3 7
Brush mouse
Ncololna lt'pida 1 I
Desert :vood rat
Totals ii"'f4 ..... 72 .....3' ....ii 5S
Trapping success 71% 82% 71',',/, 53% 65';;, 68%
May 26, Igus BTE98-IU3
Kirfiand Biological Services
SUMNIARY
Based on the available infornla~ion and site conditions, tilere ~,,as a [o,,v probability that ~he SBKR may
occur on the projecl site. The site was flapped according to slandard protocols developed for tile SBKR
No SBKR were caught durii~g tile trapping studies, and therefore Illis species is not present on site.
Kirtland Biological Services
References
Burr, W. H., 19S6. ,4 Field C,.,i [c to: th:' ,%.i:z,,.,zll::tls ill ~',Zo~Zh A,zcl'i,.'tllz i',,dt'th of ,~.ir,r/co. I{oughton MiB'Hn
ii
Company/, Boston Massachusetts.
Hall, E.R., 1981. The Mtm,l.ds ofNorzh A,tl'riclt, Volumes I and II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Ne;v
York.
Hickman, J.C.. ed. 1993. The Ii'pso,t Mlmtt, d: Hi,qhee Phmts oJ'Gfll)brlzhL University of California Press.
lngles, L.G., 1965. Mlintltstfls of the Pttcific St~ttes. Stanford Uzfix'ersity Press, Stanford, California.
Laudenslayer, Jr.. W.F., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner, 1991. A Ch,'ck-list of fin' Amt~hibians, Rt'ptilcs.
Birds tutd A, lttntt~azl5 ofGdifornitt, California Fish and Game 77:109-14 I.
McKernan, R.L., 1997. The Slttltt5 tltld Ktta~t,lt Distrilmtio. o]' the S,m BiTtrill'dittO ~Iltgtll'O0 Rill (Dipodottty5
merritmti l~m'otts ): Field stt~-~t'J/s c'ottdt~clcd J~e~t,c't'n 7987 trod 1996. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Sen, ice, Carlshad F~eld Of rite.
Munz, P.A., 1974. A Florr~ of~tttlter~ Gtlijbr~ti~t. IJnive~i{y of California Press. Berkeley, California.
Soil Conservation Service, I980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a. EmeFgc~l{'ji R.le to List the Stm Bermtrdhro Ktm,~ttFoo Rtit. Sitn
Be~'ltal'ditto arid Riwrside Con.ties h~ Sonthertl Gdt)rorttfd. ~ls ~ldtorge~ ed.. Vol. 63, No. I7, pp. 3835 -
~43.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b. Emllm,Cct .d t.td Thrcettl'm.d Wdtlh)~' mid Pht.ts; Proposed Rtlle to List
the Sml Bermtrdilto KtmSltroo Rllt Its E~ldltt,Sl,I rd; mtd Nc~tice oJ' P.blic Hl'ltrilt,%. Vol. 63, No. I7, pp.
3877- 3878.
May 26, 19VS BTEgB-103 i(1
KErrland Biological Services
Appendix A - Plant Species Observed
ANG[OSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Asteraceae Su nfl ower fam i ly
,4rlemisilt califorlzica California sagebrush
Bal 'chu Hs sahi'ifolilt M u l e fat
Cettlasu'ett utdih'usis Tocalote
Encdhz~triuosa Deserl brittlebush
ERaS° Sallica Fi la go
HitcH'alia sqtatrrosa Saw-toothed goldenbush
Boraginaceae 8orage fanfily
Aresluck/el iuh'rtucditt ]:idd[eneck
Cr~Ftmttlta intcru.'d~t Popcorn flower
Brassicaceae M us tard ram i ly
HirschA'ldht iucatta Short-podded mustard
Euphorbiaceae Spurge family
Crotou c'ahforuiot Croton
Fabaccae Pea family
Ash'ttgti[tt5 pottiottettst5 Locoweed
~ltt$ scol~aritt5 Deer weed
Lttpiutt5 bicolor M in ia t u re l u pine
Geraniaceae Geranium family
Erodiu,t cfi:uhH ittm Red-stemmed filaree
Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf family
Eriodict~ou trichocalyx Yerba santa
Pltttcclht rumosissimtt Branching phacelia
Lamiaceae Mint family
A'lm'rtd~imu vttlgarc Horehound
Salvht ,tphz.a White sage
Malvaccae Mallow family
tVltlhlcolhttttttttts~lscictt[altts Chaparral mallow
Malva Intmtflortt Cheeseweed
Myrtaceae Myrtle family
E.cui~/ptu> Slob.his Blue gum
Kirtland Biological Services
Onagraceae Evening primrose family
Gi~z:issoleirt biseo,l'ltt Califo~ ~ia suncup
Polygonaceae Buckwheat family
Er/oXoutttllfilst'/c'tdttltttlt California buckwheat
Solanaceae Nightshade family
So~llttttll .~,zli Deadly nightshade
ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCO'I~'LEDONAE MONOCOT FLO~.VERING PLANTS
Poaceae Grass fa cnily
A~t'~ltl [Itlr[llthl Slender wild oats
Brolilus t~uldrih'ttsis Red brome
SCIIiSIIIIIS I;arbtllt~S Abu-mashi
Vll[;lia IllyltrOS Foxtail
Taxonomy and nomenclaIure follow Hickn~an 1993 and Munz 1974.
May 26, 199S fiTEgg-103 ~ ~,/{~ A- 2
Kirtland Biological Services
Appendix B - Animal Species Observed
REFFILIA, REPTILES
Iguanidae Iguanas and their allies
Uta stansbnrt~nta Side-blotched lizard
AVES BIRDS
Accipitrldae Kites, hawks and eagles
ButeojamahTnsis Red-tailed ha,.vk
Phasianidae Quails and pheasaots
Callilll'tda cttlifo rzth 'n Ca {i fo rn i a q u a i[
Columbidae Pigeons and doves
Z{'IIlli(?I~ IIItlCFOIII'tl N[OU rning dove
Troehlidae Hummingbirds
Czdljllt¢'tultttl Anoa's hununingbird
Corvidae Crows and ravens
AFhrloconitt cocl'tlh'st't,lts Scrub jay
COITHIS [n'ttchyrhynchas An~erican cro~v
Aegithalidae Bushtits
Psaltriluzrlts ntinitntts Bushtit
Mimidae Mimic thrushes
A'linuts tlalyglotlos Northern mockingbird
Toxoslotna redi?,iznnn California thrasl~er
Emberizidae Warblers, sparrows, blackbirds and relatives
Pipilo cHssulis California towhee
A'hrlosfli,at Itlt'[odia SOIlg sparro',v
Zonolrichitt lcncollhtjl: White-crowned sparrow
MAMN1ALIA MAMMALS
Leporidae Rabbits and bares
Sylvi!agztsattdttbonii Audubon's cottontail
LiThIs cahfornh'tts Black-tailed iackrabbit
May 26, 1998 BTEg~- )3 A 4q
Kirttand Biological Services
Heteromy/dae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats
]~l'lOglZtltJltlS .iOitgilll('lltbl iS [llC~'illtlBIl5 LOS Al~ge~es pocket mouse
Chat'todippusfidbtx San Diego pocket mouse
Dipodomys agilis Pacific kangaroo rat
Cricetidae Cricctine m~ce and rats
Pt'romyscus adqbrnh'us California mouse
PelD~llySc'tl5 boyfii Brush mouse
Ntvtouta h'phht Desert woodrat
Canidac Foxes, wolves and relatives
Cmtis ~ttmns Coyote
Nomenclature follo;vs Carlh & Tilden 1986, Hall i981, Laudensla),er el al. 199I, and gtebbins 1966.
t~I E O E i V E D
WEALTH V, LLC du,,4 7ass
1028 WESTNIINSTER AVENUE, ALHAN1Bt~A,, CALI-~aORNq'A~9tS0-3 ~
TEL. (626) 300-8898 FAX. (626) 300-9364 Pianning Division
Ms. Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant PlaEer J~e 15, 1998
Pla~g Depa~ment
Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga
I0500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
E: Tract 13812 - F~e Depa~ment Weed Abatement
Des Ms. Gallardo:
As a follow-up to our conversation last week, we are concerned about the
ongo~g potential liabili~ due to the exist~g vegative cover on ~e site. Since
March this year, we have received ~o notices ~om the San Bemard~o
Co~Zke Hazard Abatement to perfoE weed abatement for the site, and
there are t~ee e~st~g s~gle family residential homes adjacent to our site (on
the westerly side of o~ site). We have been told by the CiU that we can not
clear the site until we receive enviromental clearance ~om the City. We
want to clear the site as soon as possible to ~I~Ii the requirements of the San
Bemardino CoEty~ke Hazard Abatement, but are ~able to do that due to
the enviromental concerns.
We requested in writing from the City what we have been told; we have not
yet to receive this from the City. As we discussed last week, we are caught
between the need to perform weed abatement for the site against the
environmental regulations and requirements for clearances prior to clearing
the site. We would prefer to clear the whole site at this time, but would be
willing to perform minimal clearing meeting the Fire Hazard Abatement's
requirements at this time and complete the balance of the clearing upon
receiving environmental clearance.
,t tt
As we currently understand the process, we anticipate receiving
environmental clearances from ihe City on Jub" 22, 1998 through the Planning
Cormmission ce~ification of the Negative Declaration for the s.te.
Please call me if you have any question regarding these items.
Ken Wuh
cc: William Nichols, County of San. Bernardino/Fire Hazard Abatement
Dan Coleman, Planning Department, City ofRancho Cucamonga
Brad Bul,ler, City Planner, City ofRancho Cucamonga
AsP,
CI'FY OF P, ANCHO CUCA~'IONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998 ~
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING GRADING REVIEW
AND TIME EXTENSIONS
BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga takes various actions in the review of
development applications. The activities include subdivision review, review of grading plans, design
review, issuance of permits, and the granting of time extensions for project approvals. Under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, these actions are divided into two
categories: ministerial and discretionary. CEQA environmental review requirements apply to
discretionary projects approved by the City (e.g., approval of subdivision map), but do not apply to
ministerial projects (e.g., issuance of a building permit),
The purpose of these amendments is to clarify that certain actions are ministerial activities.
ANALYSIS:
A. Gradinq Ordinance: California courts in certain jurisdictions have reasoned that issuance
of grading permits can be considered discretionary approval subject to CEQA. The current
language in our Grading Ordinance could be interpreted that review of grading plans and
issuance of grading permits was a discretionary act which triggers CEQA review at the
grading stage because it allows for discretion to apply conditions. Obviously, this was not
the intent when the Grading Ordinance was adopted. The attached amendment to the
Grading Ordinance clarifies the intent that a normal grading application and the issuance
of a grading permit does not involve discretion on the part of the City. The exception to this
is the Hillside Grading Ordinance. There, the general grading guidelines and specific type
of grading which will occur must be considered discretionary.
B. Subdivision Map Extensions: Case law does not answer the question of whether there is
due process right or fundamental property right in a person near a project to receive notice
and the opportunity to be heard at a hearing for an extension of Subdivision Maps. The Map
Act does not specify a hearing for extensions of Tentative Maps. The City Attorney has
advised staff that a public hearing process should be required for a time extension, The
City's Subdivision Ordinance currently gives the City Planner authority to grant time
extensions of Tentative Maps. Currently, Tentative Maps are approved for an initial two-
year period, subiect to extensions in 12-month increments upon request of the applicant.
To be consistent with the Map Act, it is recommended that the Subdivision Ordinance be
amended to provide for a three-year approval period with time extensions up to two years
consistent with the Map Act.
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOR'F
GRADING REVIEW & TIME EXTENSIONS
July 22, 1998
Page 2
C. Conditional Use Permits. Developrnent Reviews, Variances and Minor Exceptions:
Currently, the City grants approval for two years. Extensions may be granted by the city
Planner, without a public hearing, in 12-month increments for up to five years from the
original approval date. It is recommended that the Development Code be amended to
provide for a five-year approval period without time extensions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed amendments are exempt from environmental
review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, :Section 15061 (b)(3).
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinan:e, and Development Code Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:Is
Attachments: Resolution Recommending Approval of Grading Ordinance Amendment
Resolution Recomending Approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Code Amendment
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING
TO THE REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
I. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the Amendment described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code
Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of
" Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct,
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on July 10 and July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
c, The proposed amendment will not be detrimentaI to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC
July 22, 1998
Page 2
d. The subject application is consistent .with the objectives of the Development
Code; and
e. The proposed amendm,mt is in conformance with The General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmantal Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial
evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment
will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is
exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guideline:s, Section 15061 (b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set: forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends of IVlunicipal Code Amendment No. 98-01 shown in the
Ordinance attached hereto.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E, David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ranaho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 22nd ,Jay of July, 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
" AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.12 OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REVIEW
OF GRADING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
A, Recitals.
1. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced
Municipal Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution
No. , recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamogna adopt said
amendment.
2. Qn ,1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and
concluded a duly-noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Development
Code.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the subject amendment
identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 3: Section 15.12.220 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as
follows:
15.12.220 Appendix Section 3309 Amended - Plans and Specifications.
Section 3309
(a) Plans and Specifications, When required by the Building Official, each application
for a grading permit shall be accompanied by three sets of plans and
specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and
engineering geology report. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and
signed by a Civil Engineer when required by the Building Official.
(b) A grading permit may be issued based upon a preliminary grading plan where
insufficient precise detail of site improvement exists at the time of grading permit
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO,
GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC
Page 2
issuance. Where grading is accomplished based upon a preliminary grading plan,
the submittal and approval of a final grading plan shall be required, prior to the
issuance of any building pe 'mit for the site.
Preliminary grading plans sqall include sufficient detail to assure that at the time
of final Grading Plan submi:tal, all standards and specifications of this code and
other City grading regulations will be met.
(c) Information on Plans and ir Specifications. Plans shall be drawn to scale upon
substantial paper or cloth an :~ shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and
extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions
of this code and all relevanl laws, ordinances. rules and regulations. The first
sheet of each set of plans shall give the location of the work and name and
address of the owners and the person by whom they were prepared. The plans
shall include the following information:
- 1. General vicinity of the proposed site.
2. Property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain
and area drainage.
3. Limiting dimensions, elevations and finish contours to be achieved by the
grading.
4. Quantities of excavation and fills.
5. Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls,
cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a
part of, the proposed work, together with a map showing the drainage area
and the estimated run off of the area served by any drains.
6. Location of any buildincjs or structures on the property where the work is to
be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of
adjacent owners which are within 15 feet of the project site or which may be
affected by the proposed grading operations.
7. Size, type and condition of vegetation that is to remain.
8, Legal restrictions such as property lines, easements. setbacks, etc.
9. Utility structures, catch basins, manholes, culverts, etc,
10. Drainage, sewer, water gas, electric or other utility lines.
11. Any unusual site conditions.
12. Contours, both existing and proposed, shall be shown in accordance with the
following schedule:
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
GRADING ORD. REV. - CI~( OF RC
Page 3
"' Natural Slopes Maximum Interval
2 percent or less 2 feet
Over 2 percent to and
including percent 5 feet
Over 9 percent 10 feet
13. Specifications containing information covering construction and material
requirements:
(d) Soils Engineering Report. The soils engineering report required by subsection (c)
shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils,
conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for
.- corrective measures including buttress fills, when necessary, and opinions and
recommendations covering adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed
by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the
stability of slopes. Recommendations included in the soils engineering reportand
, pl
,~,p ...... ~ ...........~ ........ shall be incorporated into the grading an or
specifications.
(e) Engineering Geology Report. The engineering geology report required by
Subsection (a) shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site,
conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on
the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations covering the
adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading
as affected by geological factors. Recommendations included in the reportand
........ .~ ....._ n..:,.~;__ Official shall be incorporated in the grading plans or
specifications.
(O Issuance. The provisions of Section 303 Uniform Administrative Code are
applicable to grading permits.
The Building Official may also require submittal of the following additional
information with the permit application.
1. Extent and manner of cutting of trees and clear ng of vegetation, disposal of
same, and measures for protection of undisturbed trees and/or vegetation.
2. A schedule defining staging and timing of construction and estimated extent
of disturbance at strategic points during construction.
3, Equipment, methods, and location of spoils disposal.
4. A plan defining the schedule, equipment, materials, and personnel that will
be used to maintain all protective devices and drainage facilities shown on
the approved grading plan.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC
Page 4
5. Designation of routes upon which materials may be transported and means
of access to the site
6. The location and manner to be used for disposal of excavated materials and
control of erosion from such materials·
7. Recommendations as to the mitigation of fugitive dust and dirt which may be
offensive or injurious to the neighborhood, the general public or any portion
thereof, including due consideration, care, and respect for the property
rights, and protection of said neighborhood or any portion thereof.
8. Limitations on the area. extent and duration of time of exposure of
unprotected soil surfaces.
9. Phasing of operations to minimize water run off or other environmental
concerns.
10. Such additional applicable information as the Building Official may require to
carry out the purposes of this Ordinance.
(g) Compliance with Plans and [;ode. The permittee or his agent, shall carry out the
proposed work in accordanoa with the approved plans and specifications and in
compliance with all the requi 'ements of this Code.
(h) Protection of Adjacent Property. During grading operations, the perm ttee shall be
responsible for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and no person shall
excavate on land sufficiently close to the property line to endanger any adjoining
public street, sidewalk, alley, ar other public or private property without supporting
and protecting such property from settling, cracking or other damage which might
result·
(i) Temporary Erosion Control. The permittee shall put into effect and maintain all
precautionary measures necessary to protect adjacent water courses and public
or private property from damage by erosion, flooding, and deposition of mud or
debris originating from the site.
SECTION 4: Section 15.12.250 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as
follows:
15.12.250 Appendix Section 3313 Amended - Fills. Section 3313, the Appendix of the
Uniform Building Code is amendec to read as follows:
Section 3313
(a) Fills. Unless otherwise recornmended in the approved soils engineering report
~^., ........ .~ ~.....^ D, .,.~_~ Office4 fills shall conform to the provisions of this
Section and to Figure A, Typisal Lot Cross-Section for Fills.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC
Page 5
EXCEPTION: The provisions of this section may be waived by the Building Official
for minor fills not intended to support structures.
(b) Fill Locations. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than
2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1). Fill slopes shall be located so as to toe out not
closer than 12 feet horizontally from the top of a lower natural or cut slope nor
closer than 12 feet from a 2:1 slope influence line projected from lower natural or
cut slope where that slope equals or is less than two horizontal to one vertical
(2:1),
(c) Preparation of Ground. The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by
removing vegetation, non-complying fill, top-soil and other unsuitable materials,
scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill, and, where slopes are steeper than
five to one, and the height greater than 5 feet, by benching into sound bedrock or
other competent material as determined by the soils engineer. The bench under
the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five to one shall be at least 10 feet wide.
The area beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet overflow or a paved drain
shall be provided. Where fill is to be placed over a cut, the bench under the toe
of fill shall be at least 10 feet wide but the cut must be made before placing fill and
approved by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist as a suitable
foundation for fill.
(d) Fill Material. Detrimental amount of organic material shall not be permitted in fills.
No rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12
inches shall be buried or placed in fills.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official may permit placement of larger rock when the
soils engineer properly devises a method of placement, continuously inspects its
placement and approves the fill stability. The following conditions shall also apply:
1. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, potential rock disposal areas shall be
-delineated on the grading plan.
2. Rock sizes greater than 24 inches in maximum dimension shall be 10 feet
or more below grade measured vertically.
3. Rocks shall be placed so as to assure filling of all voids with well graded soil.
(e) Compaction. All fills, including backfill in utility trenches, shall be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of maximum density.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Fills exempted elsewhere in this ordinance and where the Building Official
determines that compaction is not a necessary safety measure to aid in
preventing saturation, settlement, slipping, or erosion of the fill.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO,
GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC
Page 6
2. Where lower density and expansive types of soil exist, permission for lesser
compaction may ibe granted by the Building Official upon showing of good
"' cause under the conditions provided herein.
3. Alternate methods of filling and compaction may be utilized on utility trenches
or other specific .projects when recommended by the soils engineer and
........ '~ ~"' the Building O~cial
(f) Slope. The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended
use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical.
(g) Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided and the area
above fill slopes and the sL~daces of terraces shall be graded and paved as
required by Section 3315.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE
EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION MAPS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
'1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the Amendment described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code
Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, including written and oral
staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the De,/elopment Code;
and
c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC
July 22, 1998
Page 2
d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Development
Code; and
e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with The General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder. and fLrther, specifically finds that based upon substanlial
evidence, it can be seen with certainty ,that ':here is no possibility that the proposed amendment
will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore. the proposed amendment is
exempt pursuant to State C EQA Guidelines. Section 15061 (b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above.
-. this Commission hereby recommends ,of Mjnicipal Code Amendment No. 98-01 shown in the
Ordinance attached hereto.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet. Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutior was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 22nd clay of July, 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCENO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
GUGAMONGA, GALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE RANGHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING EXTENSION OF
SUBDIVISION MAPS.
A. Recitals.
1. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced
Municipal Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof. adopted ils Resolution
No. , recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamogna adopt said
amendment.
2. Qn ,1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and
concluded a duly-noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Development
Code.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth
in Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the subject
amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder,
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations,
SECTION 3: Section 16.16.160 is hereby is amended to read, in words and figures,
as follows:
16.16.160 Expiration.
A. The approval or conditional approval of a tentative subdivision map shall expire
threeyearstwcnty four months from the date of the adoption of the Resolution by
the Planning Commission approving or conditionally approving the map. An
extension to the expiration date may be approved as provided in Section
16.16.170(-b).
B. Expiration of an approved or conditionally approved Tentative Map shall terminate
all proceedings and no final map or parcel of all or any portion of the real property
included within such Tentative Map shall be filed without first processing a new
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC
Page 2
Tentative Map. (Ordinance 28-C, Section 4, 1989; Ordinance 28-B, Section
1.401.11,t, t981).
SECTION 4: Section 16.16.170 is hereby amended to read in words and figures, as
follows and all subsequent Sections renumbered accordingly.
16.16.170 Extensions.
A. Request by Subdivider. The Subdivider or his represe. ntative may request an
extension of the expiratior date of the approved or conditionally approved
Tentative Subdivision Map by written application to the Community Development
Department. The application shall be filed not less than sixty days before the map
is to expire, and shall state the reasons for requesting the extension.
B. C~ty "" ..... ^ ^"~" ~'~'~ City Planner .......
or ourrcnt ..... ::g polZCy or past prsct[cc t,hst wou:d causc t,hc spprovcd ,map
Plsnn;ng Ccmmbs~cn for cc%Zdcrst~on.
B. Planning Commission Action. All time extension requests shall be
processed in the same manner as original tentative subdivision map in
accordance with Cha~ter
C. Time Limit of Extension. Ex':ensions may be granted for a period or periods not
exceeding a total of three two years,
D. Conditions of Approval. As a condition of the extension of a Tentative Tract Map,
after conducting a public hearing, the CZty P',anncr or Planning Commission may
impose new conditions or revise existing conditions on the approved Tentative
Map as they find necessa~. All public hearing notice requirements of the State
Subdivision Map Act shall apply.
E. Appeal of Extension. The subdivider may appeal in writing any action of theCZty
n, ........ .~ n,~_,~_ n~;~; ........... :"" afthe Planning Commission
to the City Council, within fifteen days of such action in conformance to Section
16.16.130.
F. Fee. The fee for processing an extension shall be pursuant to the City's Master
Fee Resolution.
G. Findings. The granting of an extension shall require the Planning Commission
to make all of the findings ~'n accordance with Section ~6.16400.
I. T,hc prc' 'Zo:sly spprovcd Tcntst:,ve Map js ~n substantial co, ,mp',Zancs "'~th tha
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC
Page 3
· ,,,,, .,,. ~..,,..,,~ w ..... a, an, 3-pacific ,,,,~,,o, ,~,,~,,,~,,~.,..~, aria,
o ""' ........ :^' "'~" "'~*~*:"~ "'^: .... Hkely to causc ""'-':^ hcalth and
· bad)', "'~ --qucsted
SECTION 5: Section 16.20.090 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as
follows:
16.20.090 Expiration. The approval or conditional approval of the Tentative Parcel Map
shall expire three years * ........ ' ........ '-^ from the date of adoption of the Resolution by the
Planning Commission approving orconditionally approving the map. The expiration ofthe approved
or conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map shall terminate all proceedings and no Parcel Map
of all or any portion of the real property included within such Tentative Parcel Map shall be filed
without first processing a new Tentative Parcel Map. (Ordinance 28-C, Section 8, 1989; Ordinance
28-B, Section 1.501.8; 1981).
SECTION 6: Section 16.20.100 is hereby rcpcalcd and all aubsaqucnt Scctians
rcnumbcrcd-~ccardin*I". amended to read in words and figures, as follows and all subsequent
sections ranumbered accordingly·
A. Request by Subdivider. The Subdivider or his representative may request an
extension of the expiration date of the approved or conditionally approved
Tentative Map by written application to the Community Development Director. The
application shall be filed not less than sixty days prior to the expiration date and
shall state the reasons for requesting the extension.
Plan Land Usc Elc, mcnt, dcvcbp, ,merit coda or or,her applicablc specific/ca, m.munity
cansMaration.
B. Planning Commission Action. All time extension requests shall be
processed in the same manner as original tentative parcel map in
accordance with Chapter 16.20.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC
Page 4
C. Time Limit of Extension. Extensions may be granted for a period or periods not
exceeding a total ofe~-ae~ two years.
D. Conditions of Approval. As a condition Of the extension of a Tentative Parcel Map,
after conducting a public he aring, the City :ng',naer or Planning Commission may
impose new conditions or 'evise existing conditions on the approved Tentative
Parcel Map as they find necessary. All public hearing notice requirements of the
State Subdivision May Act shall apply.
E. Appeal of Extension. The Subdivider may appeal in writing any action of theCity
~_,,~,,,~.~, ,,., l,,,.. , ,~,,,,,,,~ ,-,-,,,,,,,...o,u,, ,~, .,,y ~ , fthaPlannlng Commission
to the City Council, within ffteen days of such action in conformance to Section
16.16.130.
F. Fee. The fee for processin!] an extension shall be pursuant to the City's Master
Fee Resolution. (Ordinance; 534, § 8--10, 1994; Ord. 28-C §9, 1989; Ord. 28-B §
1.501.8.2, 1981).
G. Findings. The granting of an extension shall require The Planning
Commission to make all of the findings in accordance with Section
16.20.060.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CGMM[SSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-01 PERTAINING TO THE
LAPSE OF APPROVAL AND EXTENSIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS iN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
I. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the Amendment described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the subject Development Code
Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the June 1 O, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pubIic hearing on the application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 10, and July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as lotlows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use PoIicies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 98-01 - CITY OF RC
July 22, 1998
Page 2
d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Development
Code; and
e. The proposed amendmant is in conformance with The General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds ':hat the projlect has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California EnvironrTental Quali~y Act of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial
evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment
will have a significant effect on the envircnment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is
exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelinez~, Section 15061(b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above.
this Commission hereby recommends Of Development Code Amendment No. 98-01 shown in the
Ordinance attached hereto.
6. The Secretary to this Commissicn shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
A~'EST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed. and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancbo Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of July, 1998 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 98-01, AMENDING SECTION 17.02.100 OF THE RANCHQ
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING LAPSE OF APPROVALS
AND EXTENSIONS.
A. Recitals.
1. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced
Development Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No.
98-__, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamogna adopt said
amendment.
2. On , 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
and concluded a duly-noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Development
Code.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
_ RecitaIs, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct,
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the subject amendment
identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970. as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 3: Section 17.02.100 hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as
follows:
A. Lapse of Approvals. Approvals for Development Review, Conditional Use Permits.
Variances, and Minor dcvistions Exceptions shall lapse and become void24 months
five years from the approval date, unless a different expiration date is specifically
established as a condition of approval and unless one of the following actions occur:
1. A building permit is issued in accordance with the approved entitlement and
construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or,
2. A Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 98-01 - CITY OF RC
Page 2
D ~"'~:^~ ^ .... '~-~:^~may bc .... '~'~""ha C'ty PI ..... '=^"~p3" f ........ '~ '
...... :4) .....
'~'"': ........ d,.,~t,ocxcas~atstalc, 'c~s;rom:hacrr:n~,~-det OTappr%'al
,,,:,k ,k~ ~:,,, n, ...... , ~ .... on ~ ....... : ..... . .... p:,ration datc ~ O;t}' P~,aRRC; may
~'~":" ~' ...... ';~ *' ~"'~"~" *"~"'" ~' ~ "~"=-~"'~' '~ the oafcry
CITY OF I-L=XNCHO CUCA~IONGA -- ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15926 -
CARNEY - A residential subdivision of five single family lots on 1.33 acres of land
in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest
corner of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane - APN: 202-041-67.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Proiect Density: 3.7 dwelling units per acre
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Single family residential Low Residential District
South - Single family residential Low Residential District
East - Single family residential Low Residential District
West Single family residential, flood control channel; Low Residential District
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Low Residential
North - Low Residential
South - Low Residential
East Low Residential
West Low Residential
D. Site Characteristics: The eastern portion of the project site is developed with a single family
residence. The remainder of the parcel is vacant. The site is surrounded on the north, east,
and south sides by single family residences, and on the west side by a flood control channel.
Significant slopes exist on the south side of the property on what would be the rear yard area
of the new parcels. The slope is from north to south, and the grade difference between the
subject property and the homes to the south varies from 7 to 11 feet.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property and sell the lots. There is no
development application associated with the tentative tract map application; therefore, lots
will be developed on an individual basis as custom homes
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15926 - CARNEY
July 22, 1998
Page 2
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The proj~;ct was reviewed by the Design Review Committee
(Bethel, Madas, Fong) on a Consent Calendar basis on June 30, 1998 and was approved as
presented.
C. Technical Review/Gradinq Committees: The Committees have reviewed the project and
recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval.
D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant.
Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. the Environmental Checklist. Significant slopes
exist at the southern portion of the project site. In order to mitigate any potential changes in
drainage patterns and absorption rates, the project has been designed to direct water flow to
the appropriate drainage facilities. Staff feels the project will not have a significant adverse
environmental impact. If the Plannin_c Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative
Declaration would be in order.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 15926
through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:Ijs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tracl Map
Exhibit "C" Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval
SITE UTILJZATION MAP
TRACT 15026
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15926
LOT 1
~ ~ PARCEL ~ PARCEL
, City of Rancho Cucamonga
' ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
I. Project File: Tentative Tract 15926
2. Related Files:
3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 15926 - CARNEY - A residential subdivision of 5 single family tots on 1.33 acres of land
in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwellin~l units per acre), located on the southwest corner
of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane - APN: 202-041-67.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cecil Carhey
2080 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite A
Santa Ana, CA 98705
5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by single family residential
development and a flood control channel.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho CucaC0onga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Cecilia Gallardo
(909) 477-2750
EXH/ IT" "D
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( )Culturai Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an eartier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or !'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Cecilia Gallargo
Assistant Planner
June 30, 1998
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP.~,CTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant IraFact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. WouM the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing and use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposaL'
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce ~ubstantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., ,throt.'gh projects in an
undeveloped area or extensior, of major
infrastructure)? ) ( ) ( (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the .oroposal result in '
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X)
O Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (X) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) (×)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
O The site appears to have had some dumping of soil over the years which has
changed the original topography of the site. A soils report will be required by the
Building and Safety division prior to issuance of building permits. The impact is not
considered significant.
4. WATER. WTIItheproposalresultin:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rote and amount of surface water runoff? ( (X) ( ) ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 5
O Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or w.thdrawals, er
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othe~ise available for public water
supplies? ( ( ( ) (X)
· ' Comments:
a) The project will cause changes in absorpti'on rates, drainage patterns, and the rate
and amount of su~ace water Funoff due to the amount of new hard scape resulting
from subsequent developmert on the vacant site. Significant slope features exist
at the southern potion of the subdivision. With required mitigation, the impact is not
considered significant. Installation of a concrete drainage ditch at the toe of the
slopes for Lots 1 through 4 to direct cross lot flow to appropriate drainage facilities
will be required.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ) ( ) (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ) ( ) (X)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in,'
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 6
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in.'
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (×)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (X)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative trans :ortation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic ~mpacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insectS,· animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy :onservation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents cf the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush. grass. or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
'10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin:
a) Increases in existing no se ~eve s? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) · ' ( (X)
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 8
'1.1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) · ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
· 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
O Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
-. ,, ,, ,4:
~3. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X)
initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 9
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would ~he proposak
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique efi-lnic cultural values?
) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ) ( ) (X)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or ether recrea::ional facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wil'dlife
population to drop below selfishstaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict t~e
range of a rare or endangered alant or animal,
or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major
periods of California histon/or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 10
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects. the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15926 Page 11
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the proiect described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposad mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
Occur,
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 2~091 and 2~092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15926 Public Review Period Closes: July 22, 1998
Project Name: Project Applicant: Cecil Carney
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and
Pepperidge Lane - APN: 202-041-67.
Project Description: A residential subdivision of 5 single family lots on 1.33 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environmenL
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
July 22. 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV1NG TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 15926, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 1.33 ACRES OF
LAND INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED QN THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND PEPPERIDGE
LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 202-041-67.
A. Recitals.
1. Cecil Camey has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 15926, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 22nd day of July 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B, Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Hellman
Avenue and Pepperidge Lane with a street frontage of 331 feet and lot depth of approximately
130 feet and is presently improved with a single family residence, street, curb and gutter; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
homes, the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east is
developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is a flood control channel; and
c. The project involves the subdivision of a single parcel into 5 lots.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code,
and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15926 - CARNEY
July 22, 1998
Page 2
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife oftheir habitat; and
e. The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the Tentative Tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by
the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon
the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of lc~70, as amended. and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore
reflect the independent judgment of th~ Plarning Commission; and, further, this Commission has
reviewed and considered the information cortained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,
the Initial Study and Negative Declaration fo' the project. there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
wildlife depends, Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration,
the staff reports and ~xhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the
public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set
forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of th a California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division
1) Upon development of the fi'st lot, the following improvements shall be
made:
a) Slope planting in compliance with Development Code Section
17.08.040,J.
b) Construction of a 6-foot high block and wrought iron perimeter wall
at the southern properly line for Lots 1 through 4.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15926 - CARNEY
July 22, 1998
Page 3
EnRineerina Division
1) The westerly property line of proposed parcel No. 1 shall be at the
easterly edge of an existing 40 foot wide storm channel easement. Said 40-
foot easement shall be shown as Lot "A" and shall be dedicated in
fee to the City on the tract map.
2) Public right-of-way improvements adjacent to and fronting the project site
shall be protected in place and revised, repaired, orreptaced as required.
All required improvements constructed, including but not limited to, drive
approaches, curb and gutter, sidewalk, traffic striping, and signage shall
be per City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3) Revise drawing No. 1364 to add new drive approaches. document
existing street trees as well as any new ones.
" 4) Street Improvement Plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public
improvements, prior to the issuance of building permits or final map
approval, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in
public rights-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be
obtained from the City Engineers office.
5) Rear lot drainage should be minimized by locating flowline high points as
far to the rear of lots as is practical. The private cross lot drainage facility
at the toe of slope on Lots 1 through 4 shall be concrete. Its design wilf
be reviewed during plan check of Grading PIan for grading permit.
6) On-site grading and drainage improvements per the conceptual grading
plan, including but not limited to, rough lot grading, improved swale, and
perimeter wall, are required of this development. If the required grading.
drainage, and perimeter wall improvements are not completed prior to
app~-bval of the final map. an improvement certificate shall be placed on
the final map stating that they will be completed upon development of any
Buildinq and Safety Division
1) Upon development of the first lot, a concrete drainage ditch shall be
installed at the toe of slope on Lots 1 through 4 consistent with the
conceptual Grading Plan approved in conjunction with Tentative Tract
15926.
6. TheSecretarytothisCommissionshallcertifytotheadoptionofthisResolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
~ 15926 - CARNEY
July22, 1998
Page 4
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regular y ntroduced, passed,
and adopted by the Planning Commission cf the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of July 1998, by the following
vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: TENTATIVE TRACT 15926
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: CECIL CARNEY
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AND PEPPERIDGE LANE
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THA T APPL Y TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Prior to recordafion' Of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However,
if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this project.
3. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shah be submitted to the
so. >>*.~ 1
Compledon~Date
DepartmentofCommunityDevelopment. Suchlettermusthavebeenissuedbythewaterdistrict
within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of
permits in the case of all other residential pr~]ects.
B. Time Limits
I. Approval shall expire, unless extended by th _= Planning Commission, if building permits are not /
issued or approved use has not commence( within 24 months from the date of approval.
C. Site Development
1. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions /
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfa:tion of the City Planner.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code /
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
3. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, /
including proper illumination.
4. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall /
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's
perimeter.
D. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan for s'opes shall be prepared by a licensed landscape / /
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approva~ prior to the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case! of a custom lot subdivision.
2. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical he ight and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 /
slope. shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this sectior shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less ':han 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15~gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq, ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or grea~er slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq, fit. of slop~= area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy,
4. For single family residential development~ all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously __/
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition hy the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING, AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
E. Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. Uniform Mechanical /
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and
aH other appi[cable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative
permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption
Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/__
existing unit(s), the applicant shad pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees,
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and __/__ __
prior to issuance of building permits.
F. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /__
perform such work.
PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for aH interior public streets. __ __/__
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc,) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Private drainage easements for cross-tot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or /
noted on the final map.
H. Street Improvements
1. All p~jblic improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped __ __/
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shalI be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches. sidewalks. street lights, and street trees.
2, Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: /
Curb & A.C Side- Drive Stree~ S~ree~ Comm Hedian Bike Other
S~reet Name GuRer Pvmt walk Appr. LighZs Trees Trail Island Trail
Pepperidge Ct. X X X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landszaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavemen~
reconstruction and overlays wil~ be determired during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item.
3, Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees , street fights, and intersection safety
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to anti approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of life public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance cf building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed i'~ public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
:' interconnecl conduit shall be installed ta the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall. be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at interse ctions and No. 5 along streets. a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise spec'~ed by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2dnch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City.~:oads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with '/
adequate detours during construction. Sireel or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the co st of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the constructi'on to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g.Concentrated drainage flows shall not c'oss sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be /
installed to City Standards, exceptffor single family residential bts.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. /
4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in I
accordance with the City's street tree program.
I. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting I
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pror to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
J. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water,
electric power, telephone. and cable TV (art underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shah be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsibte for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San BernardinD. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
K. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: City of
Rancho Cucamonga (BerTI/Hellman Channel Connection).
~,PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello RoDs Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. /
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1000 gallons per minute. /
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department /
personnel prior to water plan approval.
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be __/__
conducted by the builde~developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after
construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed /
and operabte prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i,e,, lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire deparlment personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. AIItreesandshrubsplantedinanymedianshallbekepttrimmedaminimumof14'6"fromground / /
up so as not to impede fire apparatus.
6, S 132.00 Fire district fee(s), and a S1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho / /
Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance.
7. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, / /
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
JUL 20 ~98 05:~PM OSF INTERNqTIOMAL P.2/_~
July 20, 1998
VIA FAX
City ofRaneho Cucamonga
P'lazming Commission
P.O. Box 807
ll~neho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Sir / Madam:
As the o~er and operator of a family oriented restaurant directly across the street
from the Compass Creek Res'tattmnt and Brewery, we welcome the restaurant and brewing
operation to the neighborhood. Adding other restaurants to the general area will enhance
Foothill Boulevard's reputation as a place to visit when dining.
However, as an operator with some experience dig with live emertnlnment
operations adjacent to our operations, we would like to add a word of caution. Live
entertainment in a bar atmosphcr~ generally brings a different crowd than non-emertainment
restaurant/bars. The crowd is generally younger, rowdier and will stay later than typical
dining hours.
As a restaurant that caters to families and large groups, we want to be sure that titere
are safeguards in place to ensure that there ,~ilI not be problems with parking lot drinking,
par~s, crowds and litter. We want to be assured that our patirons and property will not be
affected at any time of the day or Bight. We also want to express ottr cem and receive
assunmces that any. live music will be limited to axe interior oft_b¢ facility and not be heard
oulside the facility in a way that could be a nuisance to surrounding businesses.
We have invested a substantial amounz 0ftime and money into constructing and
operating the Old Spaghetti Facto~ in Raneho Oucamonga. W'e warn to be sure that our
business is not adversely affected by our customer' s negative per~ption of other businesses
inthearea.
Thank you for considering our opirdon on thls matter.
'
Vice ]h'esident-Development
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANiONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT &
BREWERY - A request to establish a bar and micro-brewery in conjunction with a
restaurant within an existing building in the Masi Plaza with a leased space of 8,700
square feet, located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-011-39. Related file:
Entertainment Permit 98-03.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT &
BREWERY - A request to have entertainment consisting of live bands in conjunction
with a restaurant and bar within an existing building in the Masi Plaza with a leased
space of 8,700 square feet, located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-39.
Related file: Conditional Use Permit 98-11.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Site Characteristics and Surroundinq Land Use: The site is within a 24-acre planned mixed
use center consisting of multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings, restaurants, and
auto services, as shown in Exhibit "B." The building for the proposed Compass Creek
Restaurant & Brewery is an existing one and is being improved and expanded to allow two
restaurant tenants, as shown in Exhibit "C." Within this mixed used center, Masi Plaza, the
auto service court is completed, the buildings along Foothill Boulevard are completed, and
Buildings 13 and 14 are under construction. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. North
of the site is Terra Vista Promenade with users such as Home Depot, Spaghetti Factory, Arco,
and CarIs Jr. South of the site is the City's Stadium and Adult Sports complex. West of the
site is undeveloped. East of the site contains a single family house with undeveloped land
around it.
B. Parkinq Calculations: The analysis section of the report briefly describes the parking
requirements for Masi Plaza. Exhibits "D-1" & "D-2" show the 3 parking areas by types of
uses and a detailed parking calculation table.
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Commercial (Area 1) t37,746 971 983
Auto Court (Area 2) 24,531 109 110
Sebastian Way (Area 3) 260,255 Parking Study 238 270
1,318 1,363
[TENS D & E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOFT
CUP 98-11 & EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT
July 22, 1998
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. Proposed Uses: The applicant, Jim Cormell, proposes a full service bar and restaurant
including a micro-brewery. He also pro aoses to have entertainment for his patrons, consisting
of live bands. The days and hours of operation for the restaurant and bar are daily between
11 a.m. and 2 a.m. The days and hours of entertainment are Sunday through Thursday
between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., Friday and Saturday between 6 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. At peak
hours, the applicant anticipates having a maximum of 40 to 43 kitchen and floor personnel,
and 2 management staff. The applican': is not proposing having security personnel at this time
because he feels that his business is primarily a full service restaurant and not a nightclub.
According to the applicant, the brew area and the grain storage area are located in the
basement. A small brew area is also located at the main restaurant for display. The grain for
the brewery will be delivered in 50-pound bags and by handcarts through the service entry.
There will be two or three deliveries per week and approximately 20 to 40 bags each delivery.
Exhibit "A" is a letter from the applicant describing the process of brewing beer.
B. Compatibility of Uses: The site is surrounded by a developed commercial center. a
community sport complex, and undeveloped but industrially and commercially zoned land.
The closest residential area is more than 1,000 feet north and east of the site. However. there
is one single family home at the soulheast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester
Avenue. This residence and the surrounding area are industrially zoned. The businesses
within Masi Plaza are a mix of restaurants, a florist, a liquor and dell store, a coffee place,
dental office, auto services, and a gas :station and a mini-market. The remainder of the site
is undeveloped but planned for future multi-tenant commercial, recreational and industrial
buildings, Therefore, staff believes that the proposed bar and brewery with entertainment
would be compatible with the surrounding uses and would not have an adverse impact on
adjacent residents.
C. Public Safety Concerns: The Police Department has reviewed the proposed uses and has
no comment. The Building and Safely Division and the Fire Prevention Unit have also
reviewed the proposed uses. A condit:on of approval has been included that requires the
applicant to meet all applicable codes for interior modification and improvements and that the
building be inspected before occupancy.
D. Parkinq: Because Masi Plaza is a mixed use development, the pr:oject site is divided into
three areas for calculating the parking requirements by the types of uses. Exhibits "D-1" and
"D-2" show the three parking areas and the parking calculation table. Area 1 is the
commercial oriented section of the project and is bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Sebastian
Way, Rochester Avenue, and Masi. Drivt;. The proposed restaurant, bar, and brewery are to
be located in Building 5, which is within Area 1. The total floor area for this commercial
section, including the proposed restaurant, is 137,746 square feet. The parking requirement
is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet with th ~ allowance of 15 percent of the floor area to be food
users. Because the floor area for food users exceeds the 15 percent by 4,936 square feet,
an additional 49 spaces are required at the parking ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The total number of parking spaces required for Area 1 is 971 and the number of spaces
provided is 983. Therefore, the site has sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the
proposed uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 98-11 & EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT
July 22, 1998
Page 3
FACTS FOR FINDING: The Commission must make all of the following findings to approve the two
applications:
A. Conditional Use Permit:
1. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development
Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the District in which the
site is located.
2. The proposed use, togetherwiththeconditionsapplicablethereto, will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development
Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
B. Entertainment Permit:
1. The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary
to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
2. The premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or
disorderly manner.
3. The applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a position,
or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which
such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent
jurisdiction of any offenses involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any
obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has
not had any approval. permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sales of alcohol
or the provision of the entertainment been revoked within the preceding five years,
4. The granting of the application would not create a public nuisance.
5. The normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of
any surrounding residential neighborhoods.
6. The applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement or material
fact in the required application.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site and all the tenants within Masi Plaza.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOF',T
CUP 98-11 & EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT
July 22, 1998
Page 4
-- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the bar, micro-brewery, and entertainment
through the adoption of the attached Resolutions.
Respectfully s bmitted,
City Planner
BB:NF:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's lelter
Exhibit "B" Masi Plaza Master Site Plan
Exhibit "C" Detailed Site Plan for Building 5
Exhibit "D" Parking Area!; and Parking Calculation Table
Exhibit "E" Floor Plan
Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Conditional Use Permit 98-t 1
Resolution of Approval for Entertainment Permit 98-03
Nancy Fong
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
POe 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Dear Nancy,
After our telephone conversation last week I thought I would take a moment and
outline the brewing process and some of the elements we discussed.
Basically brewing beer is like making hot cereal. For our system size, a common one
at 15 barrels (bbl), we use on average 500 hundred pounds of raw organic materials.
Those being mostly grain, a handful of hops for flavor and yeast to ferment. These
matedais wiII be stored in bulk off site and brought to the restaurant for use as our
brewing needs dictate. Movement of these materials will seem no different than
normal restaurant materials and goods. Off loaded from a pickup truck to a handcart or
by hand through the normal kitchen service entrance. On site storage will consist of
around 20-40 fifty pound bags of grain. Twenty bags is required per brew, 40 bags
makes a pallet load-for convenient storage.
The grains are cooked in a vessel called a mash tun, not unlike a huge pot making
oatmeal at home. The cooked water is the basis of the beer. The spent grain is then
removed from the mash tun and some is used in the kitchen for baking breads and
crust, the remainder witl be packed back out in containers and taken away for livestock
feed or to landfill. The water is transferred to fermenter tanks where the yeast is added
At that point we are technically now making beer. After some days or weeks
fermenting, depending on the beer style, the yeast is drawn off and the beer
transferred again to a serving tank for our consumption as a great micro brewed beer
from Compass Creek.
All equipment is coded to the latest and future California codes and uses no more
energy or creates no more waste than other restaurant production, actually tess was:e
for we don't th~An 2nything
~BIf ~; av;ay except the bags from the grain.
I hope this helps to clarify the brewing process and its impact visually and ecologically.
If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
~ ~ Th
FOOTHILL BOLILEVABD
~ FOO'FNILL ~LV'D MAsI
PLAZA
~ · .. ' .--~~~;' ,, ......~.._Z.... ,"-"~ ..~, L,~'l_l I~m'a s
- _~ ~: -., . .:. -~. ...' ............
I--
+ ,,. ~ ......
(',~ ~.,
..........
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
ICE BIG TING RINKS
ROLEER RINK : ~ : ~
[A~J l.j~ m lLi LI~L~.I.[JJIIJ~_LELU.I~
~.,p~ ,, , ........
COP ~'1/ Ex,,an' Pl-sn-E P~ .
..~f~-~
COMMERCIAL CENTER (AREA 1)
. Bldg.~' , Fl~oF~r~ ~ ~-~'~ ~ ; :~ Pa~ng Ra~o c=;- Required -j'- Provided
3 2,770 Jack In the 8ox 5/1000 14
4 10,600 Restaurants/ 5/1000 53
Commercial
5 12,000 Restaurants 5/1000 65
6 4.978 Denny's Restaurant 5/1000 25
7 7,739 Multi-tenan~ 5/1000 39
Commercial
11 17,486 Commercial (future) 5/1000 87
12 14,800 Commercial (future) 5/1000 74
-. 13 20,688 Commercia~ (under 5/1000 103
construction)
14 11,980 Commercial (under 5/1000 60
construction)
15 14,300 Commercial (future) 5/1000 72
27 20,405 Theater -1300 seats 1:4 seats 330
(future)
Total 137,746 922
4,936 + Restaurant over 15% 1/100 49
Total 137.746 [ 971 983
AUTO COURT (AREA 2)
::LB!~g~~ ~Elo~rea~,: :~Use';:q~2::7= --Pa~in~ RatiO7 .~:~ReqQire~ :~7 ~Z~i~
1 4,322 Texaco Express Lube 3+2/bay 15 15
2 2,550 Mini-Ma~ 4/1000 13 14
Gas Station/ 3
Car Wash
8 5.132 Auto SeNice (8 bays) I 3+2/bay 19 20
9 7.791 Auto SeNice (20baysl t 3+21bay 43 41
10 4.736 Auto SeNice (8 ~ays) 3+2/bay 19 20
Total 24,531 109 110
EXHIBIT "D-2"
CUP 98-11
EP 98-03
SOUTH SIDE OF SEBASTIAN WAY (AREA 3)
:- : ,:,..~ :~.-~!:-:: :::::::; .:--- ,:,!-.'~s,;::~:~;!~:: :::::7 . ----: -- ,;i_,.::':. :I:j::s. pF_~-:~{,.
18/19 84,200 Ice Rink (future) Special 158 189
Parking Study
25 20,825 Multi-tenant Industrial 1/400 52 41
(future)
26 12,103 Multi-tenant Industrial 1/400 30 40
(future)
Total 97, 128 238 270
PROJECT G~ND TOTAL
,Bldg ~.:~, ;: :EIqp~ A~a~':,: :::~?:,!{~;~,U~2)-:7~?/Z~::."2:: , Ra~ip~ ~i0':: E~:_~.~.~r~aj:~.~-
1 137,746 Shopping Center 971 983
2 24,531 Auto SeNice Cou~ 109 110
3 97,128 South Side of 238 270
Sebastian Way
Total 259,405 1,318 1,363
EXHIBIT "D-2"
CUP 98-11
EP 98-03
RESOLUTION NO.
,. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVtNG CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 98-11, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A BAR AND MICRO-
BREWERY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITHIN AN
EXISTING BUILDING IN THE MASI PLAZA WITH A LEASED SPACE OF
8,700 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-39.
A. Recitals,
1. Jim Connell of Compass Creek Restaurant & Brewery has filed an application for the
issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-11, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 22rid day of July 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct,
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports. together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard and is
presently being improved and expanded.
b. The property to the north is developed with a commercial center, the property to
the south is the City's Stadium and Adult Sports Complex, the property to the east contains a
single family house and the area surrounding it is undeveloped, and the property to the west is
undeveloped. The proposed use shares a parking Io[ to the east with a restaurant and shops and
a parking lot to the south with shops.
c, The proposed uses consist of full bar and restaurant services, a micro-brewery,
and entertainment.
d. The proposed uses are consistentwith industrial Park District and the Commercial
Recreation Overlay District, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
+EI4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT
July 22, 1998
Page 2 '
e. The proposed bar, brewery, and entertainment would be compatible to the
surrounding uses and would not have adverse impact to any residential areas.
f. The mixed use commercial center, Masi Plaza, has sufficient parking spaces to
accommodate the proposed uses.
3. Based upon the substantial evidi;nce presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in a:cord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
b. The proposed use, togeth~;r with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
4. ThePlanningCommissionherebyf[ndsanddeterminesthattheprojectidentifiedinthis
Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
5. Based upon the findings and con,:lusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attad* ed hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Plannina Division
1) Approval is for an 8,700 square foot restaurant with a bar and a
micro-brewery. Expansion or intensification of the bar and brewery
shall require a modification to the Conditional Use Permit.
2) Approval shall expire, unles,.~ extended by the Planning Commission,
if building permits are not issued or the approved use has not been
commenced within 24 mont% of this date.
3) If the operations of the facilities cause adverse effect upon adjacent
businesses or operations, th,.~ Conditional Use Permit shall be brought
before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible
termination of the use.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT
July 22, 1998
Page 3
4) The facifity shall be operated in conformance with the performance
standards as defined in the Industrial Area Specific Plan including, but
not limited to noise, odors, etc.
5) Delivery trucks shall not be parked along the main entry drive at the
west side of the building.
6) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed to be in
conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign
Program No. 125 for Masi Plaza. Plans shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval, prior to permits and installation.
7) If the operation of the facility causes nuisance problems, the City
Planner may require the applicant to implement a security personnel
plan to mitigate the problem. A detailed security plan shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval.
8) The placement of more than three coin operated amusement devices
in the facility shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit for an
arcade.
9) All pertinent conditions of approval contained in City Council
Resolution Nos. 92-240 and 95-020 shall apply.
10) All outstanding Historic Preservation mitigation (Vintner's Walk) shall
be completed, prior to release of occupancy for Building 5.
11) The food and beverage menu shall include a short history of the
Lafourcade family and its winery and the store entry, as depicted in
the plaques within the Vintner's Walk. The written history shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval before publication and
the ~:elease of occupancy for the restaurant.
Buildinq and Safety Division
1) Occupancy of the facifity shall not commence until such time as all
Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal's regulations have
been complied with. Detailed plans shaft be submitted to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division for review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits.
The building shall be inspected for compliance. prior to occupancy+
2) Any modification to the approved plans after occupancy of the
building may require additional review and/or permits from the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAL RANT
July22, 1998
Page 4
6. The Secretary to this Commissian shall CeF~ify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby cec~ify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of July 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
'E) ed I':/-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 98-11 & Entertainment Permit 98-03
SUBJECT: Compass Creek Restaurant & Brewery
APPLICANT: Jim Connell
LOCATION: 11837 Foothill Boulevard
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform PIumbing Code, Nationai Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and
all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative
permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption
Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing develop, ment, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
B. New Structures
1. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental
Health Services prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
C. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
ProiectNo. CUP98-11&~.P98-03
Completion Da:e
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking,
plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammab~e liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations.
.. 2. A fire a~arm system(s) shaft be required as noted below:
Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
X California Code Regulations Title 24.
3. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be
submitted prior to final building plan approval, Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details
and ordering information.
4.Plan check fees in the amount of S132.00 and a 81 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due prior
to permit issuance,
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms,
etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans,
5. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with I,994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
D. Special Permits
1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below:
a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations).
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
E. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on ,photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with /
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal*resis tant fixtures. / /
F. Security Hardware
1, One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be insta led on all entrance doors. If windows are within / /
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT NO. 98-03, A REQUEST TO HAVE ENTERTAINMENT
CONSISTING OF LIVE BANDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
RESTAURANT, BAR WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE MASI
PLAZA WITH A LEASED SPACE OF 8,700 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED
AT 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-39.
A. Recitals.
1. On May 21, 1986, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted
Ordinance No. 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment.
2. Jim Cormelf of Compass Creek Restaurant and Brewery has filed an application for the
issuance of Entertainment Permit No. 98-03, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the
application."
3. On the 22nd day of July 1998, the Ptanning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard and is
presently being improved and expanded.
b. The property to the north is developed with a commercial center, the property to
the south is the City's Stadium and Adult Sports Complex, the property to the east contains a
single family house and the area surrounding it is undeveloped, and the property to the west is
undeveloped. The proposed use shares a parking lot with a restaurant and shops to the east and
a parking lot to the south with shops.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY
July22, 1998
Page 2
c. The proposed uses consist of full bar and restaurant services, a micro-brewery
and entertainment.
d. Theproposedentertainmentconsistsoflivebands, The proposed days and hours
of entertainment are Sunday through Thursday between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., Friday and
Saturday between 6 p.m. and 1:30 a:m.
e. The proposed uses would be compatible with surrounding land uses,
f. There are sufficient park ng spaces within Masi Plaza to accommodate the
proposed uses.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
-- referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and
2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the conduct of the eslablishment and the granting of the application would
not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals or welfare; and
b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal,
improper or disorderly manner; and
c. That the applicant, or any aerson associated with him as principal or partner or
in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which
such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction
of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any
kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit,
or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked
within the preceding five years; and
d. Tha{ granting the application would not create a public nuisance; and
e. That the normal operation c f the premises would not interfere with the peace and
quiet of the surrounding commercial center and adjacent apartment complex; and
f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement
of material fact in the required application.
4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this
Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines; promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
5. Based upon the findings and conslusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the appfication, subiect to each and every condition set forth
below:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY
July 22, 1998
Page 3
Planninq Division
1 ) This approval is for live bands only. Any change of intensity or type
of entertainment shall require a modification to this permit.
2) The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited
to Sunday through Thursday between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m,, Friday
and Saturday between 6 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.. Any expansion of days
and/or hours shall require modification to this permit.
3) No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted.
4) Entertainment shall be conducted inside the building.
5) When entertainment is being conducted, doors and windows shall
remain closed for noise attenuation purposes,
6) Exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 dB during the hours of 7
a.m. to 10 p.m. and 60 dB during the hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
7) Access to the lounge/entertainment area must be from the main
entrance to the primary use and not from a separate exterior
entrance. Other exits shall be for "Fire Exit Only."
8) If operation of this Entertainment Permit causes adverse effects upon
adjacent residences, businesses, or operations including, but not
limited to noise, loitering, parking, or disturbances, the Entertainment
Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for
consideration and possible suspension or revocation of the permit.
9) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
10) This permit shall be renewed annually by the applicant per Municipal
Code Section 5.12.115.
11) If the operation of the facility causes nuisance problems, the City
Planner may require the applicant to implement a security personnel
plan to mitigate the problem. A detailed security plan shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY
July 22, 1998
Page 4
Fire District/Buildinq & Safety Division
1 ) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire
codes. The maximum occupancy for each room shall be posted as
determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or
the City's Fire Prevention Unit Division.
2) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all
Uniform Building Code ard Sate Marshal's regulations have been
complied with. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division for review and app -oval, prior to issuance of building permits.
The building shall be inspected for compliance, prior to occupancy.
3) Any modification to the approved plans after occupancy of the
building may require additional review and/or permits from the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division.
6. The Secretary to this Commissicn shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22 ND DAY OF JULY 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of July 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF IL=XNCHO CUCANfONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, 'Principal Planner
SUBJECT: 1998-99 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM SCHEDULF
The adopted City budget has allocated up to $500,000 to update the General Plan. A copy of the
Memorandum to the City Manager dated June 3, 1998, contains details concerning the scope and
schedule of this Project (see Exhibit "A"). The attached scope and schedule should be considered
a draft and the Commission and Council are expected to discuss and modify this process
accordingly.
The process to discuss and arrive at a final scope and schedule may be conducted in many ways;
however, the City has usually conducted a joint session of the Council and Commission or assigned
the task to a combined task force with members from each group.
Staff is seeking direction from the Commission and Council as to preferences on the process that
is preferred for completing the scope and schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:LH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Memorandum dated June 3, 1998
ITEM F
DATE: June 3, 1998
TO: lad am, AICP, City Manager
B e , , rincipal Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
A General Plan is a statement by local ciiizens of wha~ is in (he bes~ interest of their community,
as well as a comprehensive strategy for managing future growth and change. The plan defines the
type of commcrnity that is desired for the future and provides the means to obtain that future. It
defines, in the form of text, maps, and illustrations, the desired organization o~ physical, economic,
social fea!ures, and activities needed to maintain a fundional, healthful. and desirable place in
v.'hich ~o live and do business,
Rancho Cucamonga*s curren~ General Plan w~:s adopted in 1981. Now that it has now been nearly
20 years, and the resident population has mcre than doubled, a thorough update of the General
Plan will ensure that Rancho Cucamonga is well positioned for the next 20 years.
The proposed General Plan update would consist of several ~asks, which are outlined as follov.,s:
1,0 GENERA. L PLAN PROGRAM INITIATION 510,000.00
2.0 COMMUNITY ISSUES SUMMARY S75,000.00
3.0 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVES REPORT 540.000.00
4,0 GENERAL PLAN PREPARATION Si50,000.00
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT S140.000.00
6.0 FISCAL IMPACT REPORT S30,000.00
7.0 GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS S25,000.00
8.0 PROGRAM AD,",41NISTP, A. TI DN S3000000
TOTAL: S500.000.00
For a furl, her description of the ~asks lis~ed above p!ease refer to the attached Exhibit "A."
Summan/Scope of Work.
An update of this magnitude will require significant staff,' involvemen'. and a large public pa,'licipafien
pracess Consu!tants ,.vilr be required for technical studies and the reiention of one contract planner
'.'.'i{i be necessaq,, ;,a coordinate the General Plan Update Program
EXHIBIT "A"
SUMMARY SCOPE OF WORK
1.0 General Plan Program Initiation
1.1 Project Initiation Workshop
An initial meeting will be held to accomplish the following:
Overview of key reasons for General Plan update.
· Define key player roles and public participation.
Identi~ contact agencies, organizations, and individuals.
· Refine scope of work and schedules.
· Establish product review procedures.
· Esiablish strategy for General Plan consistency with any ongoing
development applications.
· Determine optimal scale and format for General Plan maps.
1.2 Review Existing Planning Documents
1.3 Base Map Preparation
2.0 Community Issues Summary
2.1 Da~a Resources
A concise analysis of the current physical. natural, and economic environments
of the City ~.:hich include the following:
· Summan/of present conditions.
· Analysis of key challenges and constraints to set stage for alterna[ives
and policy formulation.
· Evaluation of impelant inter-relationships among various planning issues
and trade-offs beb..//een solutions.
2.2 initial Community Participation Activities
Define the aspirations and concerns of residents and businesses for the future of
their community through the following actions:
· Planning Commission and City Council inteNiev,'s.
· Communit/Workshop
· Community Sen//ice Proriders Workshop.
23 Community Issues Rope*t. Preparation
The resu!ts of all the previous work ,,vii', be compi[e,:~ inio a General Plan Issues
Report..
3.0 Alternatives Report
3.1 Alternative ~.,lanagement and Land Use Sce-~anos
3.2 Alternatives Presentation Wor.'<Siacps
· Community Workshop to review and comment on Community Issues and
General Plan Alternatives Reports.
Joint workshop of Planning Commission and City Council to solicit
comments on these reports and so!oct a preferred alternative.
4.0 General Plan Preparation
4.1 Vision Statement, General Plan Profile, and Land Use Map
4.2 General Plan Profile Presentation Workshops
· Community Workshop to re,,jew and cerement on the General Plan
Profile.
· Joint workshop of Planning Commission and City Council to solicit
comments on these rep.orts.
4.3 General Plan Document
4.3.1 Land Use and Development
· Land Use
· Circulation
· Housing
· Public Facilities
- Community Design
4.3.2 Environmental Resources
· Land Resources
· Water Resources
· Plan~ and Animal Resources
· Open Space
· Energy
· imp!ementation
4.3.3 Public Health and Safety
· Geological Hazards
· Seismicity
· Flood Hazards
· , Fire Hazards
· Noise
Air Quality
Crime Prevention
· Emergency SeNices
· Miscellaneous Hazards (VVind, Eucalyptus Windrows, etc.)
4.3.4 Implementation
· Measures
· Consistency Beb, veen General Plan and Implementation Actions.
· Funding Sources
5.0 Environmental Impact Report
5.1 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
5.2 Screen check EIR
'5.3 Draft EIR'
5.4 Response to Commenis
5.5 Final EIR
5.6 Mitigation Monitoring Program
6.0 Fiscal Impact Report
· , Major Sources of Municipal Revenues
· Major A!loca~ions of Municipal Expenditures
7.0 General P!an Adopt!on Process
7.1 Public Hearings - Four Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
7.2 Findings for General Plan Adoption and EIR Codification
7.3 Final General Plan
8.0 Program Administration
8.1 City Staff Meetings - Gondudeo ac leas~ once a month
8.2 Progress Reports - Submi~ed monthly
8 3 intergovernmental Coordinaiion
GENERAL PUz, N UPDATE
JUNE 3, 1998
Page 2
A recent survey of cities which have completed updates inditE!as that the success of the upda;e
is directly proportional io staff pa-ticipafion. Intense sitizen pa-t.[cipaiion programs. similar ~o
OZamend Bar, demons:rate thac the increase jr the ieve: off comnn.zni:~,, z~'.','s-eness in the p!annin~:
process '.,,'as worth ~he effort.
Our research indicates the average cost is 8500,000 for a complete Genera! Plan update. The time
required typically takes two years from the dec sion to hire a consultant. A comprehensive request
for proposal is the key to success. A projected time line is presented as follows:
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GFNERAL PLAN UPDATE
co: Rick Gomez, Communi.tv Developmen Direc;,cr
Joe O'Nei[. Cit,/Engineer
CITY OF tLANCHO CUCANfONGA -- ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
BY: Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
SUBJECT: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
BACKGROUND: It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item from July 8, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman to
serve until the next regularly scheduled election at the first meeting in July 1999.
City Planner
BB/GS/gs
\
ITEN G
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
BACKGROUND: It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this matterfrom July 8, 1998.
The Commission normally reviews Design Review Committee membership approximately every 6
to 10 months. Membership was last considered in August 1997. It is now time to review Committee
membership.
The current membership is as follows:
COMMITTEE ALTERNATES (in order)
Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy
Rich Macias Dave Barker
Larry McNiel
A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1993 is attached as Exhibit "A."
RECOMMENDATION: The PIanning Commission should determine appropriate membership for
the Design Review Committee.
Respectfull submitted,
City Planner
BB:GS/gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History
ITEM
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
January 1993 to Present
ALTERNATES
COMMITTEE (in order)
January 1993 - October 1993: John Melcher Peter Tolstoy
VVendy Vallette Suzanne Chitiea
Larry McNiel
October 1993 - December 1993: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy
John Melcher Suzanne Chitlea
Wendy Vallette
December 1993 - June 1994: I.arry McNiel Peter Tolstoy
Jahn Melcher Heinz Lumpp
Dave Barker
June '1994 - December 1994: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy
John Melcher Larry McNiel
Dave Barker
December 1994 - Auclust 1995: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy
Larry McNiel Dave Barker
John Melcher
Aucfust '1995 to January 1996: Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker
John Melcher Peter Tolstoy
Larry McNiel
January 1996 to Auqust 1996: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy
Larry McNiel Dave Barker
John Melcher
August 1996 to January 1997: Rich blacias Bill Bethel
Larry blcNiel Peter Tolstoy
Dave Barker
January 1997 to oresent: Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy
Rich Macias Dave Barker
Larry McNiel
Exhibit A /-/~
CITY OF RA, NCHO CUCA:MONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 22, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: TRAIL ADVISORY COMMITFEE APPOINTMENTS
BACKGROUND: The terms for Planning Commissioner William Bethel and bicycfing Member-at-
Large, Paul Senft will expire in July 1998. Planning Commissioner Tolstoy's appointment expired
in July 1997. Mr. Senft has indicated his schedule will not allow him to serve on the Committee (see
attached letter). The Committee meets once a month, as needed, usually on the first Thursday of
the month at 5:30 p.m.
The last recruitment for the bicycling representative was in 1991, At that time the Planning
Commission directed staff to solicit applications through newspaper advertisement and through
~yers at local bicycle shops. A subcommittee (Bethel, Tolstoy) was also used to conduct interviews
and forward a recommendation to the Commission for consideration.
CURRENT MEMBERSHIP: For your information, the current Trails Advisory Committee
appointments are as follows (expired terms shown in boldface):
Term Expires Appointment
William Bethel July 1998 Planning Commission (1996)
Peter Tolstoy July 1997 I Planning Commission (1986)
Bruce Ann Hahn July 1999 Park &Recreation Commission (1993)
James Clopton July 1999 Park &Recreation Commission (1997)
Sue Rabone April 1999 Equestrian Member At Large (1997)
Paul Senft July 1998 Bicycling Member At Large (t991)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions
through minute action:
1, Appoint two Commission representatives to the Trails Advisor,/Committee, one for a term
· to expire in July 1999 and the other term to expire in July 2000.
ITEM I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TAC APPOINTMENTS
July 22, 1998
Page 2
2. Direct staff to issue a Press Release, adverLise in the newspaper, and post fiyers at local
bicycle shops to solicit applicants to fill the Bicycling Member-at-Large seat.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
City Planner
BB:DC:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Paul Sen~
June 4, 1998
Dan Coleman
Rancho Cucamonga Trail AdvisoD' Board
Dear Dan,
When I came home tonight front ~vork (about 6:30) I realized from your voice message
that the Trail Advisor3,' Board meeting was tonight. That makes 2 consecutive meetings
I've been unable to attend. My work schedule has been very hectic and I don't see any
change forthcoming so I regretfully am submitting my resignation from the board. I have
been proud of the work accomplished by the board and Rancho Cucamonga in general.
The board truly deserves active membership of which I am unable to provide It has been
a pleasure attending and [ personally appreciate >'our efibrts.
Sincerely,